Category: 3. Business

The amendments in SB 164 narrow certain definitions, expand reporting fields, impose additional governance and record-retention obligations, and clarify timing and compliance expectations for 2026 and beyond.

DFPI Oversight and Timeline
SB 54 originally tasked the California Civil Rights Department with collecting and publishing demographic information about startup founders. Under the 2024 amendments, this responsibility shifted to the DFPI, which will now administer and enforce the program. DFPI representatives have indicated that they are drafting a standardized survey form that fund managers must distribute to portfolio-company founding teams after investments close.

The following are the key dates for compliance:

• March 1, 2026: Fund managers must register with the DFPI, identifying themselves as covered entities.
• April 1, 2026: Fund managers must file their first annual diversity-reporting form, covering investments made in 2025.

The registration filing must also include covered-entity-level information, including the legal name of the fund, physical address, website, and the name, title and email address of a designated compliance contact, per SB 164. The DFPI intends to allow a post-deadline grace period (approximately 60 days from notice of non-compliance) during which covered entities may cure a late or missing filing before penalties of up to $5,000 per day of non-compliance are assessed. As of the date of this alert, DFPI has not yet released the standardized survey form or reporting template, and covered entities should continue to monitor DFPI guidance for further updates.

Who Is Covered
The law applies to “covered entities,” defined broadly to include venture capital firms and similar investment vehicles that:

• Qualify as a “venture capital company” under California Corporations Code § 27500 and related regulations;
• Are primarily engaged in investing in or financing startup, early-stage or emerging-growth companies; and
• Maintain a California nexus, including:

– Being headquartered or having a significant presence or operating in California,

– Investing in California-based portfolio companies, or

– Soliciting or receiving investments from California residents or entities.

Because the “California nexus” standard is broad, even firms without a physical presence in the state may fall within scope if they raise capital from even a single California investor.

What Fund Managers Must Do
The DFPI survey, expected to be released in early 2026, will require fund managers to collect demographic information from founders after signing definitive investment documents and funding such investments. Founders must be informed that:

• Participation is voluntary,
• Responses will be anonymized and reported only in the aggregate, and
• No identifying information will be disclosed.

The amended law specifies the full set of demographic fields that must be made available to founders, including gender identity (with nonbinary and gender fluid options), race, ethnicity, disability status, LGBTQ+ status, veteran or disabled-veteran status, and California residency, as well as a “decline-to-provide” option.

SB 164 also narrowed and clarified the definition of “founding team member.” A reportable founding team member is someone who (1) owned initial shares or similar ownership interests in the business, contributed to the company’s concept or development before the issuance of initial shares, and is not a passive investor in the business, or (2) is designated as chief executive officer or president.

Covered managers must aggregate the information received and report it annually to the DFPI. If no founders respond, the manager must affirmatively indicate that no information was available.

In addition to the demographic data, the fund manager must report investment-level details, including the total amount of money invested into each business during the prior year, the principal place of business of each company and the percentage of venture capital investment made by the covered entity.

Practical Implications
Nearly all venture-focused funds with at least one California investor are likely to be covered. Because survey participation by founders is voluntary, some reports may contain limited or no demographic data, but fund managers are still expected to register and file.

Firms covered should consult with their counsel and:

• Assess coverage under § 27500 and related DFPI guidance.
• Design internal processes for tracking California investments and founder-team outreach.
• Prepare to register with DFPI by March 1, 2026.
• Monitor DFPI updates and the release of the official survey form.
• Update internal privacy and data-governance systems, as SB 164 requires covered entities to retain all records related to each report for at least five years and involves sensitive personal information.
• Be aware of ongoing uncertainty, as SB 164 does not define several key terms (e.g., “emerging growth company,” “significant presence,” “diverse founded”), and further DFPI guidance will be needed.

Conclusion
California’s SB 54 represents a new stage in venture capital transparency regulation aimed at increasing disclosure with respect to diversity of founding teams. With DFPI now leading implementation and the first filings due at the beginning of Q2 of 2026, fund managers should begin compliance planning well before the survey form is released.

Pillsbury’s Investment Funds team is actively tracking DFPI updates and can assist in assessing coverage and preparing filings once the reporting framework is finalized.

Effective 1 December 2025, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 introduces the first formal procedural framework tailored to multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings, aiming to address longstanding challenges in the management of complex, high-volume federal litigation.

Key Takeaways

Rule 16.1’s Purpose

The new rule provides MDL transferee courts with an optional roadmap for early case management. After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidates actions into an MDL, the transferee court is encouraged (but not required) to take three actions aimed at effective MDL case management. First, the transferee court “should schedule an initial management conference to develop an initial plan for orderly pretrial activity in the MDL Proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(a). Second, prior to the initial management conference, the transferee court “should” order the parties to submit a pre-conference report that addresses critical issues such as consolidating pleadings, discovery, pretrial motions, and the appointment of leadership counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b). Third, after the initial conference, the transferee court “should” enter an initial case management order addressing the matters in the pre-conference report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(c). 

Early Vetting of Claims

Rule 16.1 sets the stage for early scrutiny of claims by requiring parties to outline how and when they will exchange information supporting their claims and defenses. This is designed to curb the widespread filing of unverified or unsupportable claims that have plagued MDL dockets in recent years. Indeed, as explained in the Committee Notes, “after taking account of whether the party whose claim or defense is involved has reasonable access to needed information—the court may find it appropriate to employ expedited methods to resolve claims or defenses not supported after the required information exchange.”

Perspective of the Parties

The rule specifically calls for the “parties’ initial views on various matters” in the pre-conference report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b)(3). This includes the parties’ views on “discovery, including any difficult issues that may arise,” pretrial motions, and “whether the court should consider any measures to facilitate resolving some or all actions before the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b)(3). By soliciting counsel’s input on matters during the initial stages of litigation, the rule ensures that considerations from both sides inform the transferee court’s initial case management order.

Judicial Discretion

While Rule 16.1 provides a helpful framework, it does not impose mandatory obligations on transferee courts. Indeed, the rule uses conditional phrases such as “should” and “in the court’s discretion” throughout, and the Committee Notes confirm the rule is intended as guidance rather than a mandate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1(a), (c), and Committee Notes. Its effectiveness, then, will depend on judicial willingness to implement the rule’s recommendations.

Looking Ahead

As of December 2025, there were over 340,000 cases consolidated across 157 active federal MDLs.¹ For years, the absence of clear procedural rules in MDLs led to ad hoc management and inconsistent vetting of individual claims. Rule 16.1 changes that dynamic. By introducing a structured framework and equipping transferee courts with tools to enhance case oversight from the outset, Rule 16.1 is a positive step in bringing order and efficiency to MDL proceedings. However, because the rule is discretionary, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on whether the transferee court chooses to enforce its provisions and turn optional guidance into meaningful action.

KARACHI (Dunya News) – Gold prices recorded a decline in both local and international markets on Wednesday, bringing relief to buyers after recent gains.

According to the All Pakistan Gems and Jewellers Association (APGJA), the price of gold per tola fell by Rs1,200, settling at Rs466,762 in the domestic market.

Similarly, the price of 10 grams of gold decreased by Rs1,028, reaching Rs400,173.

The association also reported a downturn in the international market, where gold prices dropped by $12 per ounce, bringing the global rate down to $4,444 per ounce.

Market analysts attribute the decline to fluctuations in the international bullion market and changing investor sentiment. Further movement in gold prices is expected to depend on global economic indicators and currency trends.

 

Orange plans to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, which may include the repayment of certain outstanding indebtedness of MasOrange to be assumed in connection with Orange’s acquisition of the remaining 50% of MasOrange.

With a weighted average coupon of 4.72% for an average maturity of 9 years, this first US dollars issuance since 2016 allows Orange to benefit from diversification in its pool of credit investors.

CAUTION: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN CANADA, AUSTRALIA OR JAPAN
This press release may not be published, distributed or transmitted in Canada, Australia or Japan. This release does not constitute an offer of securities for sale or a solicitation of an offer to purchase these securities in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan or any other jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is unlawful. The securities may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons, absent registration or an exemption from registration under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). There will be no public offering of the securities in the United States. The securities have not been, and will not be, registered under the Securities Act. The securities referred to herein may not be offered or sold in Australia, Canada or Japan or to, or for the account or benefit of, any national, resident or citizen of Australia, Canada or Japan subject to certain exceptions.

The company has not authorized any offer of the securities to retail investors (as such term is defined in the regulation) in any member state of the European Economic Area. No action has been undertaken or will be undertaken to make an offer of the securities to retail investors requiring publication of a prospectus in any EEA Member State. As a result, the securities may only be offered in EEA Member States (i) to any legal entity that is a qualified investor as defined in the Prospectus Regulation (EU) No 2017/1129, as amended or (ii) in any other circumstances falling within Article 1(4) of the Prospectus Regulation. 

This press release is an advertisement and not a prospectus within the meaning of the Prospectus Regulation and does not constitute an offer to acquire securities. No Prospectus Regulation compliant prospectus has been or will be published. 

In the United Kingdom, this release may only be distributed to, and is only directed at, persons who are “qualified investors” within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended, and who are also (i) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005, as amended (the “Order”), or (ii) persons falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (high net worth companies, unincorporated associations, etc.) (all such persons referred to in (i) and (ii) above are together being referred to as “Relevant Persons”). This release is directed only at Relevant Persons and must not be acted on or relied on by persons who are not Relevant Persons. Any investment or investment activity in securities of the Company is available only to Relevant Persons and will be engaged in only with Relevant Persons.

A former New York-based employee of TD Bank N.A, Wilfredo Aquino, pleaded guilty today to facilitating a money laundering network’s movement of hundreds of millions of dollars through TD Bank accounts.

“The defendant leveraged his position at TD Bank and facilitated the criminal activity of a money laundering network that moved hundreds of millions of dollars through the bank’s accounts,” said Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “During the illicit scheme, the defendant evaded reporting requirements to hide the identity of the leader of the money laundering network. The Criminal Division is fully committed to rooting out money-laundering networks and their facilitators that exploit the security and stability of our country’s banking system.”

“Aquino helped criminals launder money from inside TD Bank,” said Senior Counsel Philip Lamparello for the Criminal and Special Prosecutions Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey. “Bank employees are the first line of defense against money laundering, fraud, and other financial crimes. When bank employees ignore their obligations and instead use their positions to commit crimes and line their own pockets, we will not hesitate to hold them accountable.”

“Wilfredo Aquino’s position at TD Bank required him to report suspicious customer activity and adhere to robust anti-money laundering regulations,” said Special Agent in Charge Jenifer L. Piovesan of the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) Newark Field Office. “Instead, he turned a blind eye to complying with the law and prioritized enriching himself. IRS-CI will continue working with our law enforcement partners to investigate individuals taking advantage of our financial system through criminal activity.”

Aquino, 47, of New York, pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with conspiring to launder monetary instruments. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 12.

According to court filings, beginning in 2019 and continuing until February 2021, Aquino, then a TD Bank assistant store manager, leveraged his position to facilitate a money laundering network’s movement of hundreds of millions of dollars through TD Bank accounts. During that time, the leader of the network, Da Ying Sze, also known as David, and his co-conspirators (collectively known as David’s Network) moved approximately $474 million through TD Bank accounts by depositing cash at TD Bank stores in New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere. In February 2022, David pleaded guilty to coordinating a $653 million money laundering conspiracy, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and bribing bank employees in connection with financial transactions.

While David’s Network used a number of TD Bank stores to conduct its money laundering activity, it laundered the most money through Aquino’s Midtown Manhattan store. Nobody processed more transactions for David’s Network at the Midtown Manhattan store than Aquino.

During the course of David’s money laundering scheme, Aquino processed approximately 1,680 official bank checks for David’s Network, totaling more than approximately $92 million. Nearly all of these bank checks were funded with a corresponding cash deposit exceeding $10,000, which triggered TD Bank’s legal requirement to file a currency transaction report (CTR). Although Aquino knew that David was conducting these cash deposits, Aquino never identified David as the “conductor” on the CTR. Aquino also knew that TD Bank had closed other accounts linked to David for suspicious activity; one colleague even warned Aquino that David’s activity “looks like money laundering.” In February 2021, Aquino facilitated three of David’s money laundering transactions, totaling almost $2 million in cash, in a third party’s account. He failed to report David as the conductor of the transaction, thus concealing David’s role in the money laundering scheme.

Aquino accepted numerous retail gift cards from David totaling over $11,000 in return for his facilitation of this scheme, including for the three transactions in February 2021.

The charge of money laundering conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $500,000 or twice the amount involved in the offense, whichever is greater.

IRS-CI and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General (FDIC-OIG) investigated the case. The Department also thanks the Morristown Police Department for its assistance with the investigation.

Trial Attorneys D. Zachary Adams and Chelsea Rooney of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Marko Pesce, Chief of the Bank Integrity, Money Laundering, and Recovery Unit for the District of New Jersey are prosecuting the case.

The Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section’s Bank Integrity Unit investigates and prosecutes banks and other financial institutions, including their officers, managers and employees whose actions threaten the integrity of the individual institution or the wider financial system.

Binghamton University is working to make you safer one step at a time, and you may start noticing on your way to class or meetings — the classic automated external defibrillators (AED), naloxone (Narcan) and bleeding control cabinets throughout campus are getting a major upgrade.

“In addition to those supplies, these stations are outfitted with new tools to share safety information to curious passersby and expedite getting help in an emergency,” said Cait Cavanaugh, associate director for the Office of Emergency Management. “During ’normal’ times, we have emergency procedures information and an instructional video on how to use an AED. In an emergency, with a push of the intercom button, or by opening the safety equipment cabinet door, the stations will activate an emergency call, with video, to the University’s emergency dispatch center,”

But that’s not all that’s different.

“The most obvious update, however, is the appearance,” Cavanaugh added. “The lime-green wall and blue light are dual purpose: In addition to being memorable and easy to find in an emergency, the blue light (which signifies an emergency call button) can also be used with the B-Alert emergency alert system. The light is actually a speaker! We will be able to use text-to-voice integration to share time-sensitive information using one more method to better serve our diverse community.”

The Emergency Station Program marks the next step in proactive readiness for Binghamton University. This program helps make publicly accessible equipment available in an emergency — when stress levels are high — while co-locating integrated technology to aid dispatch and communicate with those experiencing an emergency.

“While a handful of other campuses have also added emergency procedure information to their AED cabinet locations, we may be the first to make a fully outfitted station as a one-stop shop for any emergency,” Cavanaugh said. “The concept of highlighting safety equipment and making safety a key feature in a building is progressive for higher ed.”

The project is a joint effort with several areas across campus, but large contributions have been made by Security Infrastructure and Support within ITS, whose subject matter experts have worked to identify the best technologies to use to meet the University’s needs.

The priority for the emergency stations was prominence. Making sure to provide room for growth, the rollout of the program has prioritized areas where more people gather, but you can expect to see more pop up over time across the University.

“Our campus walls are full of exciting programming fliers and department info — so our AED cabinets seem invisible in comparison. We also wanted to build a more sustainable program, with room to grow inside equipment cabinets for additional equipment to be added in the future,” Cavanaugh said. “Our office is also always tracking best practices and new legislation of publicly accessible equipment.”