The Securities Docket recently hosted its Securities Enforcement conference in Washington, DC. Panels covered several topics around financial and investor risks and management, regulation updates, and emerging technology. Although no SEC officials were present, former Commission staff and legal and compliance professionals provided their perspectives on the latest trends and developments. Following are key takeaways from Securities Enforcement DC.

1. Emphasizing “Back to Basics”

Panelists repeated this adage across multiple panels, emphasizing the SEC’s step away from an enforcement focus pertaining to some areas like climate and cyber, and a move toward focusing on traditional areas of fraud, insider trading, and market manipulation.

Setting the stage for the SEC’s and Chairman Atkins’ back to basics approach was the “A ‘New Day at the SEC’ – The Macro and Micro Impact of Changes in Leadership” panel. During this session, panelists discussed a general environment of “unprecedented” changes, including living in an “age of executive orders,” “limitations with resources,” and “organizational restructuring.” Former Commission officers noted a “significant difference” in the approach taken by President Trump in his first term, which was largely hands-off with respect to the SEC, and his second term, which has focused on specifying SEC priorities that support areas in executive orders. Plainly, the panel noted a “unifying theme from Chairman Atkins” that narrows this SEC’s focus on enforcement to “lying, cheating, and stealing related to the purchase or offering of securities.”

That said, other panel discussions emphasized the risk of accounting fraud and insider trading and, for AI, noted the risk of disclosure fraud. A pervasive sentiment across panel discussions was that these and other technology-forward areas will continue to come under scrutiny as they grow, instigating more risk for investors and for financial fraud.

2. Practical Compliance to Address the Evolution of AI

The panel on AI, “The SEC and AI: Playing Offense and Defense,” kicked off by speaking to the rapidity of AI’s growth, noting “the number of active users of ChatGPT in 2022 was effectively zero … and today it is over 800 million.” The rapid rise of AI usage by companies is acknowledging an “innovation first” mission by the current US administration. However, much of the development, deployment, and use is without formalized regulation in the US, resulting in fewer compliance guardrails. A&M Managing Director Brooke Hopkins served as a panelist in the AI session, noting “AI is a high-speed train; you cannot stop it from being used within your or your clients’ companies … [w]hat needs to be understood is the risk of exposure to state and global regulations [such as the EU AI Act] and how to monitor AI usage by employees and AI disclosures.”

Panelists noted that more than 90% of companies mentioned AI in 10-Ks in 2024, and some companies disclosed increased efficiency due to “layoffs attributed to AI gains.” Despite the prevalence of AI in the corporate environment, panelists spoke about the application of “old laws” by the SEC rather than using SEC’s AI Task Force to create a “new frontier” of legal obligations. Illustrating this notion are the current SEC cases involving alleged AI washing, which point to existing antifraud and disclosure provisions of the US securities laws. [1]

Panelists spoke to the SEC’s AI Task Force focus on bolstering the SEC’s mission—protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation—with an eye toward efficiency gains by Commission staff through use of AI. The panel discussed how the appointment of the Commission’s Chief AI Officer, Valerie Szczepanik, is expected to result in collaboration across the divisions with the use of AI, in addition to bringing more AI governance to work that is already ongoing. Another highlighted point was the long-term use of technology by Commission staff, including by the Division of Enforcement, which uses data analytics and analytical approaches that will likely spread across other divisions under Ms. Szczepanik’s guidance.

The panel agreed that it is likely that “written guidance” would not come out of this SEC. However, panelists highlighted paying attention to less formal guidance through SEC communications at conferences like SEC Speaks, at which earlier this year SEC officials spoke about the use of AI, a framework to think about, and questions and risks that compliance professionals should be thinking about. Practically, the panelists recommended that AI should not be seen as something irrelevant to their business. Organizations should not be indifferent to AI simply because it has not touched them. Moreso, organizations should view AI as a high risk and potentially high stakes area that should be assessed for risk, integrated within the control environment, implemented through training, and monitored within organizations’ compliance programs.

A&M recently published its AI Litigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Risk Q4 2025 Regulatory Update, which discusses key regulatory actions and opportunities for companies to address AI compliance. [2]

3. Insider Trading Updates

Panelists on the “Insider Trading 360° – Enforcement Trends, Key Cases and Prosecutions” remarked that Chairman Atkins has made insider trading a priority focus area for the SEC as it falls within his return to “traditional” fraud cases and individual accountability. Despite a decrease year-over-year in the number of enforcement actions brought by this SEC, panelists presented statistics showing insider trading cases are up: Under Chairman Atkins, roughly 40 insider trading cases were brought, versus an estimated 34 under Chairman Gensler and 38 under Chairman Clayton.

The panel stated that penalties are not expected to be more than those levied under Chairman Gensler primarily due to Chairman Atkins’ more “traditional” approach. While penalties from back-channel communications cases amounted to an estimated $2 billion, panelists noted an intentional step away from these types of cases by Chairman Atkins and toward the “bread-and-butter” cases that harm investors. Noting this and given the reduction in enforcement actions this past year, panelists predicted that penalties will likely not go beyond the amount levied under Chairman Gensler.

Since April 2023, the SEC has had a requirement for domestic public companies to disclose if they have an insider trading policy and if so to file it with their annual reports. [3] If public companies do not have an insider trading policy, they must explain why. Panelists surmised that while the SEC could charge a company if it found an insider trading policy to be unreasonable, it likely would not if there was no proof of insider trading by the company. However, it is not yet clear if this SEC will balance requirements of policies and procedures with clear violations of securities laws or take a more discrete approach to penalizing companies for having an unreasonable or lack of insider trading policy even if proof of insider trading is not present.

Consistently throughout the conference, panelists recommended that public companies retain their compliance programs and continue to identify and monitor risks. Multiple panelists mentioned that companies should take note of the statute of limitations for federal securities fraud cases, which is generally five years from commencement of proceedings and, in certain cases, 10 years for SEC enforcement actions seeking equitable relief or disgorgement in intentional fraud cases. Panelists also commented on the increase in state-level enforcement activity around fraud and corruption due to the apparent pullback of US federal mandates. 

[1]. “SEC Charges Two Investment Advisers with Making False and Misleading Statements About Their Use of Artificial Intelligence,” SEC Press Release, March 18, 2024.

[2]. Brooke Hopkins et al., “A&M’s AI Litigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Risk Q4 2025 Regulatory Update,” Alvarez & Marsal, November 13, 2025.

[3]. SEC Regulation S-K 408(b)(1).