Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mergers & Acquisitions

Federal Bank Regulators Announce Rescission of Climate-Related Risk Management Principles

By

What Happened?

On October 16, 2025, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) (collectively, the “bank regulators”) announced that they intend to rescind the interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions (“Climate Principles”).

Why Does it Matter?

The Climate Principles, initially issued in 2023, require large financial institutions with consolidated assets over $100 billion to consider climate-related financial risk management in line with regulator risk expectations (including for governance, compliance management, strategic planning, and risk management). The banking regulators’ move to rescind the Climate Principles follows the OCC’s withdrawal from them on March 31.

This recission signals the bank regulators’ shifting view of how climate change considerations should impact individual bank policy, which is consistent with President Trump’s rescission of the Biden Administration’s executive order on climate-related financial risk. The FRB staff noted in a memo to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that they believe the Climate Principles “are not necessary and may be distracting large financial institutions from the management of material financial risks.” (Previously, FRB Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman argued in 2023, when the Climate Principles were initially issued, that they “increased compliance cost and burden without a commensurate improvement to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.” She also expressed concerns that examiners would be pressured to apply the Climate Principles’ expectations on smaller banks.)

What Do You Need to Do?

Guidance from the bank regulators emphasize that banks must continue to assess all material risks and should be resilient to a range of risks. This does not completely rule out that a bank may need to prepare for climate-related risks, but it removes the spotlight from these risks if they are not deemed “material,” such as those that are present, in the words of FRB Vice Chair Bowman, over an “indefinite time horizon.” The rescission of the Climate Principles will take effect immediately upon publication of a formal notice in the Federal Register (currently pending); the bank regulators issued a draft notice in advance of that publication.

The banking regulators’ withdrawal of the Climate Principles does not impact parallel state action to address risks associates with climate change. Shortly after the Climate Principles were issued in 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services issued its own guidance for financial institutions regarding climate change risks. This guidance remains in effect for all New York state regulated mortgage lenders and servicers, banking organizations, licensed branches, and agencies of foreign banking organizations. Thus, even when the Climate Principles are rescinded, regulated financial institutions may have cause to remain attuned to related risks.

New York’s FAIR Act: What Financial Services Compliance Teams Must Know

By

What Happened?

As we highlighted in March following its introduction, the New York’s Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices (“FAIR”) Act represents a fundamental transformation of the state’s consumer protection framework, expanding enforcement authority beyond “deceptive” practices to include “unfair” and “abusive” acts. The FAIR Act has passed the legislature and awaits the governor’s signature.  The Fair Act will take effect 60 days following its enactment.

Legislative Changes

The FAIR Act transforms the New York’s consumer protection framework by expanding General Business Law (“GBL”) Section 349 beyond “deceptive” practices to include “unfair” and “abusive” acts. The amendments include several critical changes:

Expanded Scope of Prohibited Conduct

The GBL will now include and define three categories of unlawful business practices:

  • Deceptive practices: Under the existing standard, deceptive practices include acts that involve misleading or false representations.
  • Unfair practices: Under the FAIR Act, unfair practices include acts or practices that cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, which is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
  • Abusive practices: Under the FAIR Act, abusive practices include acts or practices that materially interfere with a person’s understanding of terms or conditions or take unreasonable advantage of a person’s lack of understanding, inability to protect their interests, or reasonable reliance by a person on a person engaging in the act or practice to act in the relying person’s interests.

Broader Protected Classes

The FAIR Act extends protections under Section 349 of the GBL to “businesses and non-profits as well as individuals,” recognizing that “small business or non-profit” entities need protection equivalent to consumers.

Elimination of Court-Imposed Limitations

The FAIR Act makes any prohibited act or practice under Section 349 of the GLB “actionable by the attorney general regardless of whether or not that act or practice is consumer-oriented,” overturning decades of judicial precedent that limited enforcement to consumer-facing conduct.

Enhanced Enforcement Authority

The Attorney General also gains expanded powers to bring actions against any person conducting business in New York, with broader jurisdiction and streamlined enforcement procedures. The Attorney General has the power to enjoin and seek restitution from any person conducting any business, trade or commerce or furnishing a service in New York, “whether or not the person is without the state.”

Why Does it Matter?

Federal Enforcement Vacuum

The legislation emerges as federal consumer protection enforcement has recently taken a sharp turn towards less regulation and enforcement, with states working to fill the gap left by the federal pullback. As the CFPB undergoes significant transition, certain state financial regulators and attorneys general appear poised to step into the CFPB’s shoes. New York’s legislation represents the most comprehensive state-level response to this federal retreat, potentially serving as a model for other jurisdictions. It is also worth noting that in March 2024, the CFPB, under then-Director Rohit Chopra, issued a letter to New York Governor Hochul supporting amendments to New York’s consumer protection laws to address unfairness and abusiveness.

Business Impact and Compliance Challenges

The legislation creates significant new compliance obligations for businesses operating in New York:

  • The “unfair” and “abusive” standards adopt federal concepts but apply them more broadly, creating uncertainty about compliance boundaries.
  • The law creates liability for the first time for “unfair” and “abusive” acts and practices while abrogating case law limiting the scope of the statute to allegedly consumer-oriented deception.
  • Removal of the “consumer-oriented” limitation means B2B transactions, internal business practices, and commercial relationships now face potential enforcement actions.

What Do I Need to Do?

In reviewing customer-facing and business-to-business practices against the new “unfair” and “abusive” standards, industry participants should bear in mind that the broad definitions require analysis beyond traditional deceptive practice frameworks.

First, despite federal changes, consumer protection compliance remains crucial, particularly as state enforcement intensifies. Companies should:

  • Ensure compliance policies address the broader unfair and abusive practice definitions;
  • Train personnel on the expanded standards;
  • Enhance monitoring systems for the broader range of prohibited conduct; and
  • Review and ensure documentation protocols for business practice justifications. The “unfair” standard includes a balancing test considering “countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” Companies should document legitimate business justifications for practices that might otherwise appear harmful.

Second, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been actively leading multistate coalitions on consumer protection issues, suggesting coordinated enforcement strategies. With CFPB enforcement curtailed, New York’s expanded authority makes the state a primary regulatory battleground. Financial institutions should expect heightened scrutiny of:

  • Fee structures and disclosure practices;
  • Lending practices and underwriting standards;
  • Customer communications and marketing materials; and
  • Digital platform interfaces and user experience design.

Third, the legislation’s focus on addressing “new and emerging technologies” suggests that companies should pay particular attention to:

  • Digital platforms and user interface design;
  • Data collection and usage practices;
  • Algorithmic decision-making processes; and
  • Subscription and recurring billing practices.

The FAIR Act represents a significant shift in the consumer protection landscape, with New York positioning itself as the primary regulatory authority as federal enforcement retreats. Businesses should assess their practices against these expanded standards while preparing for a more aggressive state enforcement environment. Other states are considering similar legislation, suggesting this may represent a broader trend requiring multi-state strategic planning. For example, California has introduced legislation to broaden its already robust and aggressive California Consumer Financial Protection Law to expand the authority of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to enforce consumer financial protection laws.

Companies operating in New York or considering New York operations must develop comprehensive compliance strategies that address not only the immediate requirements of the FAIR Act but also the evolving landscape of state-level consumer protection enforcement.

The elimination of traditional limitations on enforcement scope, combined with the broad definitions of unfair and abusive acts or practices, creates both compliance challenges and strategic opportunities for businesses that proactively adapt to this new regulatory environment.

Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team is actively engaged and monitoring these developments and can assist with any compliance concerns regarding these changes to New York law.

Financial Services Advisory | FDIC Takes First Steps in Revising Supervisory Appeals Processes

By , ,

Originally published August 18, 2025 on the Alston & Bird website.

Executive Summary

Our Financial Services Team examines a proposed rule by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that would revise its process for institutions to appeal material supervisory determinations.

  • The FDIC proposes to replace its Supervisory Appeals Review Committee with a new “independent” Office of Supervisory Appeals
  • If finalized, the proposed rule would create a clearer path to challenge exam-based supervisory findings affecting institutions’ ratings, regulatory treatment, and reputational standing
  • Public comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a final rule expected in early 2026

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed revising its guidelines for appealing material supervisory determinations. The Proposed Rule reflects an effort to enhance the independence, clarity, and fairness of the FDIC’s internal appeals process in response to years of criticism from regulated institutions and trade groups. If adopted, the revised guidelines would strengthen procedural protections, increase transparency, and replace the FDIC’s existing Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC) with a standalone office within the FDIC known as the Office of Supervisory Appeals (OSA). This proposal merits a fresh comparison to the appeals processes of the other prudential agencies: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

FDIC’s Current Appeals Framework

Under the FDIC’s current appeals guidelines, an FDIC‐supervised institution may seek review of any “material supervisory determination.” That term broadly covers virtually all major exam ratings and related findings, including CAMELS, IT, trust, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and consumer‐compliance ratings; required loan‐loss provisions; significant asset classifications; certain determination relating to violations of law; Regulation Z restitution; decisions relating to informal enforcement actions; compliance with formal enforcement actions; matters requiring board attention; and certain other supervisory determinations as may be deemed appropriate. However, formal enforcement decisions (such as cease-and-desist orders, civil money penalties, placing an institution into conservatorship, or invoking prompt corrective action) are expressly excluded and are not appealable.

Before submitting a formal appeal request, institutions are encouraged, but not required, to make a good-faith effort to resolve disputes with on-site examiners or the appropriate regional office. If issues remain unresolved, the institution may submit a written request for formal review to the appropriate FDIC division director within 60 calendar days after receiving the exam report or other written notice of the disputed determination. The division director then has 45 days to review the request and must either issue a written ruling on the points raised or refer the matter to the SARC for appellate consideration.

If the institution is dissatisfied with the division director’s decision, it may appeal to the SARC within 30 calendar days of receiving that decision. The SARC is a three‐member intra‐agency panel composed of FDIC board‐affiliated senior officials, with the FDIC general counsel and FDIC ombudsman serving as nonvoting members. The appeal must be filed in writing and include a copy of the division director’s decision and the institution’s full legal and factual arguments. The institution may also request an oral presentation before the SARC. Once an appeal is filed, the SARC independently reviews the record as of the date of the original determination – focusing on consistency with applicable laws, regulations, FDIC policy, and the overall reasonableness of the supervisory action. A hearing on the appeal must be convened within 90 days of filing, and the SARC must issue a written decision within 45 days after such hearing. The SARC’s decision is communicated to the institution in writing and is published in redacted form for precedent.

The Proposed Rule

Chief among the Proposed Rule’s changes is replacing the current SARC structure with a new OSA as the final review body. Under the Proposed Rule, an institution would first appeal a material supervisory determination to the appropriate division director in the same manner as is currently in place. If the matter remains unresolved, the OSA would hear the matter. This independent office is intended to provide a “robust, independent supervisory appeals process” that promotes impartiality and consistency. The ultimate goal of the OSA is to remove appeals decisions from the usual examination management chain and vest them in a standalone entity staffed by objective experts.

The proposed OSA would be a permanent, standalone unit of the FDIC, separate from the examination divisions. The OSA would report directly to the FDIC chairperson’s office and be granted delegated authority by the FDIC board of directors to decide appeals. Decision panels would consist of three reviewing officials, each serving a fixed term. Notably, at least one panelist must have hands-on bank supervisory experience, and, to ensure neutrality, the FDIC plans to recruit from outside its own ranks. The Proposed Rule notes that potential candidates may include former regulators, former bankers, and other industry professionals with relevant expertise. Current FDIC employees would be ineligible for these panelist roles, and appointees would serve as part-time, conflict-checked FDIC staff members bound by FDIC confidentiality rules. The FDIC expects the OSA will be fully staffed and operational as soon as the Final Rule is issued and will replace the SARC as the final appeals forum.

Procedurally, the Proposed Rule otherwise mirrors the existing appeals framework. While an appeal would still originate with the division director, any further appeal would go to an OSA panel. The OSA will then conduct a new review of the contested determination. Like the division director, the OSA must assess the matter solely on legal and policy consistency and “the reasonableness of the support” offered for each side’s position. Importantly, the Proposed Rule explicitly instructs the OSA not to defer to the original examiner’s or the institution’s preferred outcome. By spelling out a nondeference standard, the Proposed Rule underscores that appeals are to be decided independently on their merits.

The FDIC’s ombudsman will continue to have a neutral oversight role under the new rules. As before, the FDIC ombudsman will serve as a nonvoting participant who liaises between the FDIC and appellant institutions; however, under the Proposed Rule, the FDIC ombudsman may submit written views to the appeals panel for its consideration and is tasked with monitoring for examiner retaliation.

FDIC leadership emphasizes that the reforms are intended to make the appeals process more independent, apolitical, and consistent. By staffing the OSA with external, term limited officials, the FDIC expects to attract impartial reviewers who have no ongoing career incentives tied to specific supervisory divisions. This “standalone entity” approach allows reviewers to devote their full attention to appeals cases, rather than juggling multiple FDIC duties. The inclusion of former bankers and regulators on appeal panels is meant to ensure that each panel has deep practical knowledge of banking, improving the quality and consistency of decisions. Collectively, these changes aim to reduce any perception of bias (for example, examiners reviewing one another) and to foster uniformity in how policies are applied across regions.

If finalized, these revisions would provide institutions with a clearer and more robust path to challenge exam-based supervisory findings that may affect ratings, regulatory treatment, and reputational standing. Public comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a Final Rule anticipated in early 2026. The promulgation of the Proposed Rule also invites comparisons with similar frameworks maintained by the OCC and the Federal Reserve, both of which have implemented mechanisms aimed at providing independent, impartial review of supervisory determinations.

Appeals at the OCC

The OCC has long maintained an informal appeals process, through the OCC’s supervisory officers, and a formal appeals process through its Office of Enterprise Governance and the Ombudsman or the deputy comptroller. Similar to the Proposed Rule, the OCC ombudsman is housed within the OCC but operates separately from the agency’s supervisory chain of command.

Institutions supervised by the OCC may appeal examination ratings, determination on the adequacy of allowance for credit losses, individual loan ratings, violations of law, Shared National Credit decisions, fair-lending decisions, licensing decisions, and material supervisory determinations in matters requiring attention, compliance with enforcement actions, or other conclusions in a report of examination. Generally, once an institution determines to appeal a decision, the institution may submit an informal appeal to the appropriate OCC supervisory office. Any informal appeal must be submitted within 10 days of receiving a final written agency decision. Once filed, the supervisory office then has 10 days to issue a written appeals decision. If the institution does not agree with the supervisory office’s determination, the institution may seek further resolution through the OCC’s formal appeals process.

Under the formal appeals process, an institution may submit an appeal to either the deputy comptroller or the OCC’s ombudsman. In both cases, the appeal must be submitted within 60 days of receiving the final written agency decision giving rise to the appeal.

If an appeal is filed with the deputy comptroller, the deputy comptroller will review whether the subject decision is appealable and solicit an appeal response from the applicable supervisory office. The deputy comptroller may then engage in discussions with the institution, request supplemental information, and consult with independent OCC staff. Once the review is completed, a final written decision is typically issued by the deputy comptroller within 45 days. If an institution disagrees with the deputy comptroller’s decision, the institution may further appeal the matter to the OCC ombudsman. This second-tier appeal must be submitted to the OCC ombudsman within 15 days of receiving the deputy comptroller’s decision letter. Upon receipt, the OCC ombudsman will review any material considered in the appeal response, including information submitted by the institution at the time of the appeal or any other information considered in making the appeal decision and may seek additional information from the appellant institution. As with the initial appellate decision, the OCC’s ombudsman will generally issue a response to the second-tier appeal within 45 days of acceptance.

If the appeal is filed directly with the OCC ombudsman, rather than seeking an initial determination from the deputy comptroller, the OCC ombudsman will determine whether the subject decision is appealable within seven days of receipt. If the decision is appealable, the supervisory office will submit an appeal response to the OCC ombudsman within seven days of the OCC ombudsman’s acceptance of the appeal. The OCC ombudsman may then engage in discussions with the institution, request supplemental information, and consult with independent OCC staff. In certain cases, the OCC ombudsman may order an independent reexamination, conducted by examiners who were not involved in the original review. Once the review is completed, a final written decision is typically issued within 45 days. Notably, if an appeal is filed directly with the OCC ombudsman, the institution is not eligible for a second-tier review.

As with the Proposed Rule, the OCC’s appeals policy requires the publication of anonymized appeals proceedings and prohibits retaliation against institutions that file appeals.

Federal Reserve Appeals

Under the Federal Reserve’s appeals framework, institutions are generally encouraged to raise concerns directly with Reserve Bank or Federal Reserve Board staff and resolve disagreements before beginning a formal appeal. Unlike the OCC’s informal framework, the Federal Reserve’s informal resolutions process does not have set timelines or procedural requirements; rather, institutions and regulators are expected to act in good faith. Despite the lack of procedural requirements, during this informal resolution process, institutions may contact the Federal Reserve’s ombudsman for confidential assistance and guidance.

If informal efforts do not resolve the relevant issues, the institution may submit a formal written appeal to the Fed’s ombudsman within 30 calendar days of receiving the supervisory determination. Under the Federal Reserve’s appellate process, institutions may appeal any “material supervisory determination” including material determinations relating to examination or inspection composite ratings, material examination or inspection component ratings, the adequacy of loan loss reserves and/or capital, significant loan classification, accounting interpretation, matters requiring attention or immediate attention, CRA ratings (including component ratings), and consumer-compliance ratings. Upon receipt, an initial review panel is appointed by the appropriate Federal Reserve division director. This initial panel consists of three Reserve Bank employees not involved in the original determination and an attorney adviser. The initial panel reviews the record independently, without deference to prior findings, and may meet informally with the institution. Following a review of the record, the initial panel issues a written decision within 45 days.

If the institution disagrees with the initial panel’s decision, it may request a final review by submitting written notice to the Fed’s ombudsman within 14 days. A final review panel composed of at least three Federal Reserve Board employees, including at least one who is a Federal Reserve associate director or higher, and an attorney adviser will then assess the appeal. This final panel reviews only the record from the initial appeal and applies a “clear error” standard of review. No new evidence may be submitted, but the final panel may determine in its discretion to have an informal appeal meeting at which a representative of the institution or counsel may appear personally to make an oral presentation to the final panel. Following a complete review, the final panel issues its written decision within 21 days of the request.

Unlike the OCC process (but similar to the Proposed Rule’s), the Fed’s ombudsman plays a procedural support role as opposed to a decision-making role. The Fed’s ombudsman advises institutions on how to navigate the process and serves as a confidential point of contact for retaliation concerns. While the ombudsman does not decide appeals, their involvement is intended to provide a valuable safeguard for preserving institutional independence and trust in the process.

Strategic Considerations and Industry Outlook

Supervisory appeals processes across all three federal banking agencies are critically important because they typically represent an institution’s sole administrative remedy. Judicial review of supervisory ratings is generally unavailable unless a finding is incorporated into a formal enforcement action or final agency order. Absent that, courts routinely hold that ratings decisions, and determinations on CAMELS, CRA, and IT assessments, are nonfinal agency actions and therefore ineligible for review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

As a result, institutions facing adverse examination findings must treat the appeals process as their only opportunity to create a formal record, present factual and legal rebuttals, and seek modification or reversal of supervisory conclusions. Additionally, exam findings and related requirements are not stayed as a matter of course when the determinations are appealed. If an institution desires the effects of a determination to be stayed, the institution must formally request action be taken.

The Proposed Rule and an anticipated shift in supervisory focus may encourage greater industry pushback on agency discretion, and banks may be more inclined to challenge material supervisory determinations that impact their growth, capital planning, or reputational profile. These appeals may also be strategically used to preserve a favorable standing ahead of potential mergers or capital offerings.

Nevertheless, appealing a supervisory determination carries certain risks. Institutions must carefully consider the potential impact on their ongoing supervisory relationship, the strength of their factual record, and the likelihood of success based on prevailing agency precedent. For that reason, early preparation is essential – banks should engage legal counsel at the examination stage, ensure contemporaneous documentation of examiner interactions, and begin preparing a factual narrative that supports potential appeal arguments.

If adopted as proposed, the Proposed Rule represents a meaningful shift in the FDIC’s appeals process. If finalized, the revisions would provide institutions with greater transparency and independence. While internal agency appeal remains a nonpublic and nonlitigious process, its significance cannot be overstated, particularly given the limited availability of judicial review.

While the Proposed Rule is not expected to be finalized until 2026, in the interim, regulated institutions should evaluate internal policies for addressing examination disputes, consider designating escalation teams within legal or compliance functions, and familiarize themselves with the appeals frameworks across all three federal banking regulators.

If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Financial Services team.

You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.

President’s Working Group Declares a New Era for Digital Assets

By

What Happened?

On July 30, 2025, the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets released a comprehensive Digital Assets Report, outlining a national strategy for cryptocurrency and blockchain. Declaring a departure from the prior Administration’s approach, the report recommends that regulators adopt pro-innovation rules toward digital assets and blockchain technology. It addresses market structure, banking, payments, stablecoins, taxation, and anti-money-laundering (AML) measures.

The Working Group was established in the President’s January Executive Order, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, which declared support for the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technologies, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.

Why Is It Important?

The report marks a significant shift in U.S. policy, and it is designed to position the United States as a global leader in digital finance. It outlines lawful digital asset use, including self-custody rights, and promotes U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoins to strengthen dollar dominance globally (while rejecting a U.S. central bank digital currency). The recommended framework includes tools that include safe harbors, innovation exemptions, and updated tax and banking rules.

On July 31, 2025, SEC Chair Paul Atkins amplified the report’s significance in a speech, American Leadership in the Digital Finance Revolution, calling it a “blueprint to make America first in blockchain and crypto technology.” He characterized the potential of digital asset technology as a new area in the history of financial markets and said that regulatory clarity could unleash unprecedented capital formation and consumer choice.

What To Do Now?

The regulatory tide has clearly shifted for companies who wish to explore or engage in the digital asset ecosystem. As always, sound compliance and governance structures will be key as regulatory expectations evolve. Additionally, engaging with regulators and industry groups to craft safe harbors and sandbox programs will be crucial to ensure alignment with evolving regulatory approaches for AML, banking, tax, and digital identity standards.

Financial Services / Investment Funds Advisory | FinCEN Delays Enforcement of Investment Adviser AML/CFT Rule

By ,

Executive Summary
2 Minute Read

Our Financial Services and Investment Funds Teams examine the delay by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the effective date for the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) program requirements by two years.

  • The postponement aims to ease compliance costs, reduce uncertainty, and allow for further review of the rule
  • The rule would have included investment advisers in the list of “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act and required them to implement comprehensive AML/CFT programs
  • FinCEN will provide interim exemptive relief while reviewing the rule’s substance

_________________________________________

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has postponed the effective date of its final rule establishing the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers Rule. The effective date, previously set for January 1, 2026, is now anticipated to be January 1, 2028.

The so-called “IA AML Rule” would have brought certain investment advisers within the definition of “financial institution” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and imposed comprehensive AML/CFT program obligations. FinCEN cited several reasons for the deferral, including:

  • Easing potential compliance costs for the industry.
  • Reducing regulatory uncertainty.
  • Allowing FinCEN to undertake a broader review of the rule’s substance and scope.
  • Ensuring the rule is “effectively tailored to the diverse business models and risk profiles” within the investment adviser sector.

FinCEN also indicated its intent to collaborate with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revisit the previously proposed rule on customer identification program (CIP) requirements for investment advisers.

What This Means for Advisers

While this postponement provides a two-year reprieve from the compliance obligations of the IA AML Rule, it’s important to understand what these obligations would have entailed. Had the rule become effective in 2026, advisers would generally have been required to:

  • Develop and implement a written, risk-based AML/CFT program.
  • Designate an AML compliance officer.
  • Conduct ongoing training for relevant personnel.
  • Perform independent testing of their AML programs.
  • File suspicious activity reports with FinCEN about suspicious transactions.
  • If the associated CIP rule were finalized, implement customer identification and verification procedures for their clients.

FinCEN intends to revisit the rule’s substance through a future rulemaking process and will provide interim exemptive relief to formally delay the effective date. Firms should continue to monitor FinCEN and SEC announcements for further developments on these AML/CFT and CIP requirements.

_____________________________________________

Originally published July 28, 2025.

If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Financial Services team or one of the attorneys on our Investment Funds team.

You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.