Growing judicial skepticism and changing ideology from the current SEC leadership have collectively resulted in a recalibration of securities enforcement proceedings and attendant risks. These developments have shifted the risk analysis for private fund managers that are subject to the SEC Divisions of Investment Management and Enforcement. Federal courts have contributed by revisiting foundational questions over the proper forum for civil actions, the role of juries in adjudicating fraud-based claims and constitutional limits on the Commission’s remedies and reach. Those developments follow more than a decade of heightened administrative enforcement activity – particularly after the 2008 financial crisis – and mark a shift toward greater judicial oversight and limitations on the mechanisms securities regulators use to pursue alleged misconduct. These changes have practical consequences for private fund managers subject to SEC regulatory oversight and enforcement. This guest article by Nelson Mullins partner Benjamin Lajoie discusses how these shifts impact the day-to-day risk calculus for decision-making; influence how regulators prioritize and structure an enforcement action; and, importantly, inform how a manager may best respond to an existing or potential enforcement action – whether through strategic response, settlement or litigation strategy in contested cases. See “Former Senior SEC Staff Discuss Effective Compliance Programs and Exam and Enforcement Climate” (Dec. 18, 2025).