"Navigating Self-Disclosures as a Regulated Financial Entity," Law360
Self-disclosure and cooperation policies have been in the spotlight lately, as components of the U.S. Department of Justice, including several U.S. attorney's offices, have formalized and announced policies regarding self-disclosure and cooperation credit.
On the other hand, some, but not all, financial regulatory agencies have policies or regulations providing for consideration of voluntary self-disclosures. As enforcement risk heats up for regulated financial institutions — from prudentially supervised depository institutions to state-licensed fintechs — such entities may be forced to weigh the potential advantages and disadvantages of self-disclosing to a state or federal supervisory agency.
Regulated financial institutions face special challenges, though, particularly where an established framework for self-disclosure credit is lacking. Further, when compliance gaps or misconduct are internally identified, financial institutions, including their partners, third-party service providers and vendors, face difficult considerations due to their routine engagement with regulators through supervision and examination.
For example, what exactly does self-disclosure mean when the company is already in a regular cadence of exam, discussion or interaction with its regulator? How can a self-disclosure be considered truly voluntary, when the company already has an affirmative reporting requirement such as for suspicious activity reports?
And finally, how can a self-disclosure followed by voluntary remediation be credited by an enforcement agency that expects constant evolution of compliance programs as a routine matter?
Navigating this terrain as a regulated financial institution can mean the difference between a large fine and a nonpenalty action or declination.
A Review of Self-Disclosure Programs That May Govern Regulated Financial Institutions
Although specific programs differ, regulators consistently require self-disclosures to (1) be voluntary, i.e., self-initiated and made simultaneously to all relevant agencies; timely, i.e., should happen reasonably promptly after discovery and before discovery by a regulator; and complete, i.e., include relevant facts and information even when the investigation is ongoing, or has just begun; and (2) include adequate cooperation and remediation.
DOJ
The DOJ has now adopted voluntary self-disclosure credit programs across its components and U.S. attorney's offices.
Although a case-by-case determination, a company with an effective compliance program at the time of the qualifying self-disclosure that cooperates with the DOJ's investigation may be eligible for a declination or alternative resolution. Where aggravating factors demand enforcement action, the DOJ's policy allows for a potential 50% to 75% reduction off the U.S. sentencing guidelines fine range.
OFAC
The Office of Foreign Assets Control has a well-established voluntary self-disclosure regime to reduce or deter penalties for potential sanctions or export controls violations. Voluntary self-disclosure has become industry best practice due to the strict-liability nature of sanctions controls and OFAC's regulation contemplates a range of results including a no action, cautionary letter; civil monetary penalty; or other actions.
CFPB
Since 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has maintained a responsible business conduct policy designed to determine cooperation credit in enforcement investigations. Self-reporting, in addition to self-assessment, remediating and cooperating, is a factor considered by supervisory and enforcement teams on a case-by-case basis.
OCC
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Civil Money Penalties Policies and Procedures Manual and Matrix includes self-identification as a mitigating factor in the assessment of a penalty for unsafe or unsound practices.
FINRA
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Regulatory Notices 19-23 and 08-70 discuss extraordinary cooperation credit that may affect an enforcement decision, including: (1) timely self-reporting prior to the regulator discovering the issue, (2) the extent of the remediation including customer restitution/credit where applicable, and (3) cooperation with the investigation.
FDIC
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Formal and Informal Enforcement Actions Manual allows for credit and reduction of penalties for self-disclosures and cooperation. The FDIC assigns a specific score to each financial institution based on factors that include self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.
NYDFS
The New York Department of Financial Services does not have a formalized self-disclosure cooperation credit program, but Section 44-A(2)(b and g) of New York's Banking Law contains mitigating factors that NYDFS considers when assessing a monetary penalty, including the extent of the entity's cooperation in the investigation.
It's worth noting that Superintendent Adrienne Harris has stated "the No. 1 rule … do not surprise your regulator … if we read about it before we hear from you on it, we're already starting off in a bad place."
Potential Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Financial institutions often question whether disclosure is beneficial or may result in more significant findings or violations. Although the outcome is never certain, experience shows regulators are more willing to negotiate and concede reduced penalties for self-disclosed conduct.
As with DOJ and OFAC programs, entities that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate and remediate may receive a declination or nonprosecution agreement. Even in the absence of a formal program, voluntary self-disclosures may lead other state and federal regulators to consider this option, or at the very least, provide a significant basis to argue for reduced penalty.
Self-disclosures and cooperation can also lessen the reputational and public relations impact of a published penalty and enforcement action through the inclusion of language reflecting the financial institution's good acts.
Finally, demonstrating a commitment to voluntary cooperation and remediation can be crucial in establishing credibility and creating goodwill in the relationship with the regulator, and avoiding resource-intensive independent monitors or regulatorily imposed remediation plans.
Strategy Considerations When Self-Reporting Conduct
Financial institutions often face critical questions when deciding to self-report, including the following.
What to Disclose
Do we understand the scope and nature of the activity well enough to disclose it? Is there a risk that we are going to underdisclose or overdisclose?
How to Disclose
How should the uncovered conduct be reported to constitute self-disclosure rather than satisfying a regulatory reporting obligation?
To Whom to Disclose
Should we disclose the conduct to all of our regulators, and who should receive notice first?
When to Disclose
Do we have a credible remediation plan that we can disclose at the same time? Will delaying disclosure until a remediation plan is in place or understanding the scope of the issue still be considered timely reporting?
Guiding Principles
Self-disclosure decisions require a tailored approach, which should be guided by the principles below.
Establish a Plan
Before self-disclosing conduct, determine: (1) how you will expeditiously investigate the issues; (2) who will be included in the investigation and decision-making process, with special consideration for board of director involvement; (3) how privileged and nonprivileged work streams will be handled given the need for document collections and productions, and remediation efforts; and (4) how you will determine what remediation steps are needed.
Communicate With Your Regulator
Whether it is a root cause investigation or specific remediation steps, it is critical to establish realistic yet timely timelines for implementation that will be shared with the regulator to build credibility. Follow-through and proper documentation of findings and planned remediation are also important to demonstrate to the regulator that this will not be a repeat issue.
Document Your Work
Voluntary presentations to regulators, status updates and reports should be well documented. Internal records documenting investments in remediation and growth of compliance programs may be important to later discussions with regulators.
Don't Wait to Remediate
The investment in proactive and voluntary remediation will likely be considered in any resolution and is generally more than a dollar-for-dollar discount.
Conclusion
As a final point, it is often necessary to fight for recognition of your entity's self-disclosure and cooperation. Complex investigations can take months or years to resolve, and regulators often have to be reminded of the timeline of self-disclosure and extent of remediation and cooperation when the time comes to discuss a resolution.
A Review of Self-Disclosure Programs That May Govern Regulated Financial Institutions
Although specific programs differ, regulators consistently require self-disclosures to (1) be voluntary, i.e., self-initiated and made simultaneously to all relevant agencies; timely, i.e., should happen reasonably promptly after discovery and before discovery by a regulator; and complete, i.e., include relevant facts and information even when the investigation is ongoing, or has just begun; and (2) include adequate cooperation and remediation.
DOJ
The DOJ has now adopted voluntary self-disclosure credit programs across its components and U.S. attorney's offices.
Although a case-by-case determination, a company with an effective compliance program at the time of the qualifying self-disclosure that cooperates with the DOJ's investigation may be eligible for a declination or alternative resolution. Where aggravating factors demand enforcement action, the DOJ's policy allows for a potential 50% to 75% reduction off the U.S. sentencing guidelines fine range.
OFAC
The Office of Foreign Assets Control has a well-established voluntary self-disclosure regime to reduce or deter penalties for potential sanctions or export controls violations. Voluntary self-disclosure has become industry best practice due to the strict-liability nature of sanctions controls and OFAC's regulation contemplates a range of results including a no action, cautionary letter; civil monetary penalty; or other actions.
CFPB
Since 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has maintained a responsible business conduct policy designed to determine cooperation credit in enforcement investigations. Self-reporting, in addition to self-assessment, remediating and cooperating, is a factor considered by supervisory and enforcement teams on a case-by-case basis.
OCC
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Civil Money Penalties Policies and Procedures Manual and Matrix includes self-identification as a mitigating factor in the assessment of a penalty for unsafe or unsound practices.
FINRA
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Regulatory Notices 19-23 and 08-70 discuss extraordinary cooperation credit that may affect an enforcement decision, including: (1) timely self-reporting prior to the regulator discovering the issue, (2) the extent of the remediation including customer restitution/credit where applicable, and (3) cooperation with the investigation.
FDIC
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Formal and Informal Enforcement Actions Manual allows for credit and reduction of penalties for self-disclosures and cooperation. The FDIC assigns a specific score to each financial institution based on factors that include self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.
NYDFS
The New York Department of Financial Services does not have a formalized self-disclosure cooperation credit program, but Section 44-A(2)(b and g) of New York's Banking Law contains mitigating factors that NYDFS considers when assessing a monetary penalty, including the extent of the entity's cooperation in the investigation.
It's worth noting that Superintendent Adrienne Harris has stated "the No. 1 rule … do not surprise your regulator … if we read about it before we hear from you on it, we're already starting off in a bad place."
Potential Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Financial institutions often question whether disclosure is beneficial or may result in more significant findings or violations. Although the outcome is never certain, experience shows regulators are more willing to negotiate and concede reduced penalties for self-disclosed conduct.
As with DOJ and OFAC programs, entities that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate and remediate may receive a declination or nonprosecution agreement. Even in the absence of a formal program, voluntary self-disclosures may lead other state and federal regulators to consider this option, or at the very least, provide a significant basis to argue for reduced penalty.
Self-disclosures and cooperation can also lessen the reputational and public relations impact of a published penalty and enforcement action through the inclusion of language reflecting the financial institution's good acts.
Finally, demonstrating a commitment to voluntary cooperation and remediation can be crucial in establishing credibility and creating goodwill in the relationship with the regulator, and avoiding resource-intensive independent monitors or regulatorily imposed remediation plans.
Strategy Considerations When Self-Reporting Conduct
Financial institutions often face critical questions when deciding to self-report, including the following.
What to Disclose
Do we understand the scope and nature of the activity well enough to disclose it? Is there a risk that we are going to underdisclose or overdisclose?
How to Disclose
How should the uncovered conduct be reported to constitute self-disclosure rather than satisfying a regulatory reporting obligation?
To Whom to Disclose
Should we disclose the conduct to all of our regulators, and who should receive notice first?
When to Disclose
Do we have a credible remediation plan that we can disclose at the same time? Will delaying disclosure until a remediation plan is in place or understanding the scope of the issue still be considered timely reporting?
Guiding Principles
Self-disclosure decisions require a tailored approach, which should be guided by the principles below.
Establish a Plan
Before self-disclosing conduct, determine: (1) how you will expeditiously investigate the issues; (2) who will be included in the investigation and decision-making process, with special consideration for board of director involvement; (3) how privileged and nonprivileged work streams will be handled given the need for document collections and productions, and remediation efforts; and (4) how you will determine what remediation steps are needed.
Communicate With Your Regulator
Whether it is a root cause investigation or specific remediation steps, it is critical to establish realistic yet timely timelines for implementation that will be shared with the regulator to build credibility. Follow-through and proper documentation of findings and planned remediation are also important to demonstrate to the regulator that this will not be a repeat issue.
Document Your Work
Voluntary presentations to regulators, status updates and reports should be well documented. Internal records documenting investments in remediation and growth of compliance programs may be important to later discussions with regulators.
Don't Wait to Remediate
The investment in proactive and voluntary remediation will likely be considered in any resolution and is generally more than a dollar-for-dollar discount.
Conclusion
As a final point, it is often necessary to fight for recognition of your entity's self-disclosure and cooperation. Complex investigations can take months or years to resolve, and regulators often have to be reminded of the timeline of self-disclosure and extent of remediation and cooperation when the time comes to discuss a resolution.
Related Attorneys
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.
Self-disclosure and cooperation policies have been in the spotlight lately, as components of the U.S. Department of Justice, including several U.S. attorney's offices, have formalized and announced policies regarding self-disclosure and cooperation credit.
On the other hand, some, but not all, financial regulatory agencies have policies or regulations providing for consideration of voluntary self-disclosures. As enforcement risk heats up for regulated financial institutions — from prudentially supervised depository institutions to state-licensed fintechs — such entities may be forced to weigh the potential advantages and disadvantages of self-disclosing to a state or federal supervisory agency.
Regulated financial institutions face special challenges, though, particularly where an established framework for self-disclosure credit is lacking. Further, when compliance gaps or misconduct are internally identified, financial institutions, including their partners, third-party service providers and vendors, face difficult considerations due to their routine engagement with regulators through supervision and examination.
For example, what exactly does self-disclosure mean when the company is already in a regular cadence of exam, discussion or interaction with its regulator? How can a self-disclosure be considered truly voluntary, when the company already has an affirmative reporting requirement such as for suspicious activity reports?
And finally, how can a self-disclosure followed by voluntary remediation be credited by an enforcement agency that expects constant evolution of compliance programs as a routine matter?
Navigating this terrain as a regulated financial institution can mean the difference between a large fine and a nonpenalty action or declination.
A Review of Self-Disclosure Programs That May Govern Regulated Financial Institutions
Although specific programs differ, regulators consistently require self-disclosures to (1) be voluntary, i.e., self-initiated and made simultaneously to all relevant agencies; timely, i.e., should happen reasonably promptly after discovery and before discovery by a regulator; and complete, i.e., include relevant facts and information even when the investigation is ongoing, or has just begun; and (2) include adequate cooperation and remediation.
DOJ
The DOJ has now adopted voluntary self-disclosure credit programs across its components and U.S. attorney's offices.
Although a case-by-case determination, a company with an effective compliance program at the time of the qualifying self-disclosure that cooperates with the DOJ's investigation may be eligible for a declination or alternative resolution. Where aggravating factors demand enforcement action, the DOJ's policy allows for a potential 50% to 75% reduction off the U.S. sentencing guidelines fine range.
OFAC
The Office of Foreign Assets Control has a well-established voluntary self-disclosure regime to reduce or deter penalties for potential sanctions or export controls violations. Voluntary self-disclosure has become industry best practice due to the strict-liability nature of sanctions controls and OFAC's regulation contemplates a range of results including a no action, cautionary letter; civil monetary penalty; or other actions.
CFPB
Since 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has maintained a responsible business conduct policy designed to determine cooperation credit in enforcement investigations. Self-reporting, in addition to self-assessment, remediating and cooperating, is a factor considered by supervisory and enforcement teams on a case-by-case basis.
OCC
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Civil Money Penalties Policies and Procedures Manual and Matrix includes self-identification as a mitigating factor in the assessment of a penalty for unsafe or unsound practices.
FINRA
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Regulatory Notices 19-23 and 08-70 discuss extraordinary cooperation credit that may affect an enforcement decision, including: (1) timely self-reporting prior to the regulator discovering the issue, (2) the extent of the remediation including customer restitution/credit where applicable, and (3) cooperation with the investigation.
FDIC
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Formal and Informal Enforcement Actions Manual allows for credit and reduction of penalties for self-disclosures and cooperation. The FDIC assigns a specific score to each financial institution based on factors that include self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.
NYDFS
The New York Department of Financial Services does not have a formalized self-disclosure cooperation credit program, but Section 44-A(2)(b and g) of New York's Banking Law contains mitigating factors that NYDFS considers when assessing a monetary penalty, including the extent of the entity's cooperation in the investigation.
It's worth noting that Superintendent Adrienne Harris has stated "the No. 1 rule … do not surprise your regulator … if we read about it before we hear from you on it, we're already starting off in a bad place."
Potential Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Financial institutions often question whether disclosure is beneficial or may result in more significant findings or violations. Although the outcome is never certain, experience shows regulators are more willing to negotiate and concede reduced penalties for self-disclosed conduct.
As with DOJ and OFAC programs, entities that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate and remediate may receive a declination or nonprosecution agreement. Even in the absence of a formal program, voluntary self-disclosures may lead other state and federal regulators to consider this option, or at the very least, provide a significant basis to argue for reduced penalty.
Self-disclosures and cooperation can also lessen the reputational and public relations impact of a published penalty and enforcement action through the inclusion of language reflecting the financial institution's good acts.
Finally, demonstrating a commitment to voluntary cooperation and remediation can be crucial in establishing credibility and creating goodwill in the relationship with the regulator, and avoiding resource-intensive independent monitors or regulatorily imposed remediation plans.
Strategy Considerations When Self-Reporting Conduct
Financial institutions often face critical questions when deciding to self-report, including the following.
What to Disclose
Do we understand the scope and nature of the activity well enough to disclose it? Is there a risk that we are going to underdisclose or overdisclose?
How to Disclose
How should the uncovered conduct be reported to constitute self-disclosure rather than satisfying a regulatory reporting obligation?
To Whom to Disclose
Should we disclose the conduct to all of our regulators, and who should receive notice first?
When to Disclose
Do we have a credible remediation plan that we can disclose at the same time? Will delaying disclosure until a remediation plan is in place or understanding the scope of the issue still be considered timely reporting?
Guiding Principles
Self-disclosure decisions require a tailored approach, which should be guided by the principles below.
Establish a Plan
Before self-disclosing conduct, determine: (1) how you will expeditiously investigate the issues; (2) who will be included in the investigation and decision-making process, with special consideration for board of director involvement; (3) how privileged and nonprivileged work streams will be handled given the need for document collections and productions, and remediation efforts; and (4) how you will determine what remediation steps are needed.
Communicate With Your Regulator
Whether it is a root cause investigation or specific remediation steps, it is critical to establish realistic yet timely timelines for implementation that will be shared with the regulator to build credibility. Follow-through and proper documentation of findings and planned remediation are also important to demonstrate to the regulator that this will not be a repeat issue.
Document Your Work
Voluntary presentations to regulators, status updates and reports should be well documented. Internal records documenting investments in remediation and growth of compliance programs may be important to later discussions with regulators.
Don't Wait to Remediate
The investment in proactive and voluntary remediation will likely be considered in any resolution and is generally more than a dollar-for-dollar discount.
Conclusion
As a final point, it is often necessary to fight for recognition of your entity's self-disclosure and cooperation. Complex investigations can take months or years to resolve, and regulators often have to be reminded of the timeline of self-disclosure and extent of remediation and cooperation when the time comes to discuss a resolution.
A Review of Self-Disclosure Programs That May Govern Regulated Financial Institutions
Although specific programs differ, regulators consistently require self-disclosures to (1) be voluntary, i.e., self-initiated and made simultaneously to all relevant agencies; timely, i.e., should happen reasonably promptly after discovery and before discovery by a regulator; and complete, i.e., include relevant facts and information even when the investigation is ongoing, or has just begun; and (2) include adequate cooperation and remediation.
DOJ
The DOJ has now adopted voluntary self-disclosure credit programs across its components and U.S. attorney's offices.
Although a case-by-case determination, a company with an effective compliance program at the time of the qualifying self-disclosure that cooperates with the DOJ's investigation may be eligible for a declination or alternative resolution. Where aggravating factors demand enforcement action, the DOJ's policy allows for a potential 50% to 75% reduction off the U.S. sentencing guidelines fine range.
OFAC
The Office of Foreign Assets Control has a well-established voluntary self-disclosure regime to reduce or deter penalties for potential sanctions or export controls violations. Voluntary self-disclosure has become industry best practice due to the strict-liability nature of sanctions controls and OFAC's regulation contemplates a range of results including a no action, cautionary letter; civil monetary penalty; or other actions.
CFPB
Since 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has maintained a responsible business conduct policy designed to determine cooperation credit in enforcement investigations. Self-reporting, in addition to self-assessment, remediating and cooperating, is a factor considered by supervisory and enforcement teams on a case-by-case basis.
OCC
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Civil Money Penalties Policies and Procedures Manual and Matrix includes self-identification as a mitigating factor in the assessment of a penalty for unsafe or unsound practices.
FINRA
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Regulatory Notices 19-23 and 08-70 discuss extraordinary cooperation credit that may affect an enforcement decision, including: (1) timely self-reporting prior to the regulator discovering the issue, (2) the extent of the remediation including customer restitution/credit where applicable, and (3) cooperation with the investigation.
FDIC
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Formal and Informal Enforcement Actions Manual allows for credit and reduction of penalties for self-disclosures and cooperation. The FDIC assigns a specific score to each financial institution based on factors that include self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.
NYDFS
The New York Department of Financial Services does not have a formalized self-disclosure cooperation credit program, but Section 44-A(2)(b and g) of New York's Banking Law contains mitigating factors that NYDFS considers when assessing a monetary penalty, including the extent of the entity's cooperation in the investigation.
It's worth noting that Superintendent Adrienne Harris has stated "the No. 1 rule … do not surprise your regulator … if we read about it before we hear from you on it, we're already starting off in a bad place."
Potential Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Financial institutions often question whether disclosure is beneficial or may result in more significant findings or violations. Although the outcome is never certain, experience shows regulators are more willing to negotiate and concede reduced penalties for self-disclosed conduct.
As with DOJ and OFAC programs, entities that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate and remediate may receive a declination or nonprosecution agreement. Even in the absence of a formal program, voluntary self-disclosures may lead other state and federal regulators to consider this option, or at the very least, provide a significant basis to argue for reduced penalty.
Self-disclosures and cooperation can also lessen the reputational and public relations impact of a published penalty and enforcement action through the inclusion of language reflecting the financial institution's good acts.
Finally, demonstrating a commitment to voluntary cooperation and remediation can be crucial in establishing credibility and creating goodwill in the relationship with the regulator, and avoiding resource-intensive independent monitors or regulatorily imposed remediation plans.
Strategy Considerations When Self-Reporting Conduct
Financial institutions often face critical questions when deciding to self-report, including the following.
What to Disclose
Do we understand the scope and nature of the activity well enough to disclose it? Is there a risk that we are going to underdisclose or overdisclose?
How to Disclose
How should the uncovered conduct be reported to constitute self-disclosure rather than satisfying a regulatory reporting obligation?
To Whom to Disclose
Should we disclose the conduct to all of our regulators, and who should receive notice first?
When to Disclose
Do we have a credible remediation plan that we can disclose at the same time? Will delaying disclosure until a remediation plan is in place or understanding the scope of the issue still be considered timely reporting?
Guiding Principles
Self-disclosure decisions require a tailored approach, which should be guided by the principles below.
Establish a Plan
Before self-disclosing conduct, determine: (1) how you will expeditiously investigate the issues; (2) who will be included in the investigation and decision-making process, with special consideration for board of director involvement; (3) how privileged and nonprivileged work streams will be handled given the need for document collections and productions, and remediation efforts; and (4) how you will determine what remediation steps are needed.
Communicate With Your Regulator
Whether it is a root cause investigation or specific remediation steps, it is critical to establish realistic yet timely timelines for implementation that will be shared with the regulator to build credibility. Follow-through and proper documentation of findings and planned remediation are also important to demonstrate to the regulator that this will not be a repeat issue.
Document Your Work
Voluntary presentations to regulators, status updates and reports should be well documented. Internal records documenting investments in remediation and growth of compliance programs may be important to later discussions with regulators.
Don't Wait to Remediate
The investment in proactive and voluntary remediation will likely be considered in any resolution and is generally more than a dollar-for-dollar discount.
Conclusion
As a final point, it is often necessary to fight for recognition of your entity's self-disclosure and cooperation. Complex investigations can take months or years to resolve, and regulators often have to be reminded of the timeline of self-disclosure and extent of remediation and cooperation when the time comes to discuss a resolution.
Related Attorneys
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.
News and Insights
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
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026