Biotech funds seek SEC nod for fee hikes, share swaps

2026-21037, Investment Company Cross Trading

The SEC wants to update the rules for cross trading, which is when investment companies trade securities with their affiliates. They’re making more types of securities eligible, tightening rules to protect investors, and requiring better reporting of these trades. If you’re involved in investment companies, watch out for these changes and get your comments in by December 14, 2026!

2026-20466, Adviser and Regulated Fund Custody Rules; Crypto Custody Rules

The SEC is updating rules for how investment advisers and funds handle crypto assets, making sure they keep these digital investments safe and properly reported. These changes affect advisers, funds, and anyone managing crypto securities, aiming to modernize rules and improve transparency. Comments on the proposal are open until December 7, 2026, so get ready to weigh in!

2026-19260, Rescission of Rule 14a-8's Federal Regulation of Shareholder Proposals and Amendments to Rule 14a-4

The SEC wants to stop its federal rule that controls how shareholders can make proposals at company meetings, letting state laws and company rules take over instead. They’re also changing rules so companies can sometimes vote on proposals not in their official materials—but shareholders can opt out if they want. This affects investors and companies, with comments open until November 20, 2026, and could shake up how shareholder voices are heard and counted.

2026-18424, Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission" or the "SEC") is proposing to rescind the political contribution rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Advisers Act"), which prohibits investment advisers from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after an adviser or any covered associate of the adviser makes a contribution to certain categories of elected officials or candidates, among other prohibitions. In the more than fifteen years since the rule was adopted, implementation challenges associated with the political contribution rule have resulted in a range of significant unintended consequences, including compliance practices among some investment advisers that may have had the effect of restricting all political contributions by the investment advisers and their employees. Market participants also have stated that the political contribution rule is burdensome, complex, and both lacks clarity and creates a de facto strict liability standard. The Commission is of the view that other existing requirements of the Advisers Act and its associated rules, including prohibitions on fraud, fiduciary duty requirements, the compliance rule, and the code of ethics rule (defined below), are likely sufficient to address pay-to-play practices while allowing an adviser the flexibility to implement an approach that is more appropriately tailored to its particular risks, rendering the political contribution rule unnecessary. The Commission also is proposing to amend the rule under the Advisers Act pertaining to books and records consistent with the proposed rescission.

2026-18190, Transfer Agent Rules

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") is proposing to adopt new rules, amend existing rules, amend the existing form for registration with the Commission as a transfer agent (Form TA-1) and the existing form for reporting activities of transfer agents (Form TA-2), and rescind an existing rule governing registered transfer agents. The proposals are designed to modernize the rules governing registered transfer agents.

2026-17183, Regulation Crypto Assets

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") is proposing new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The proposed offering regime is intended to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation within the crypto asset markets while, at the same time, ensuring that investors are adequately protected and provided with the information they need to make informed investment decisions. The proposed rules would be set forth in a new regulation titled "Regulation Crypto Assets" and would include two exemptions from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. The first exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period. The second exemption would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Under both exemptions, issuers would be required to make certain principles-based narrative disclosures available to their investors. In addition, issuers under the second exemption would be required to provide financial statements and would be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. Issuers that rely on these exemptions would remain subject to the antifraud and antimanipulation provisions of the Federal securities laws. The proposed rules also would include a conditional safe harbor from the term "investment contract" in the definitions of "security" in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If the conditions of that proposed safe harbor are satisfied, then a crypto asset would be deemed not to be subject to an investment contract for purposes of those definitions of "security."

Previous: 2026-20935, Certain Paper Shopping Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; and Recission of Administrative Review, in Part; 2024-2025

The U.S. Department of Commerce found that International Packaging Limited Company (IPSC) sold paper shopping bags from Vietnam at unfairly low prices between January 2024 and June 2025. They’re stopping the review for four other companies, so only IPSC is being checked now. This could affect import duties and costs for businesses dealing with these bags starting October 14, 2026.

Next: 2026-20937, Katherine Curtis, N.P.; Decision and Order

Katherine Curtis, a nurse practitioner from Indiana, lost her DEA license to handle controlled substances because she no longer has state permission and allegedly wrote prescriptions that didn’t meet medical standards. This means she can’t legally prescribe or manage these drugs anymore, protecting public safety. The decision is final as she didn’t ask for a hearing within the required 30 days.