Thursday night’s sometimes feisty Democratic debate in New York City saw Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trade barbs over the influence of big money in politics, gun control and foreign policy.

Some of the toughest language between the two came over the topic of Wall Street banks, which has been a signature issue for Sanders since the start of his candidacy for president. The corrupting influence of corporate money on politics, income inequality and lack of accountability for the risky and greedy behavior of Wall Street banks have been the foundation of Sanders’ campaign.

Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street, including more than $15 million in donations and $650,000 in paid speeches, sparked some fiery back-and-forth on Thursday night.

Clinton countered Sanders’ call to break up the biggest Wall Street banks by saying she has also been tough on Wall Street and supported the financial reforms in the Dodd-Frank legislation passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

In past debates, when Sanders has argued for breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks, Clinton has said there is no need for that because Dodd-Frank contains a “living will” feature that will allow for an orderly deconstruction of each of the big banks in the event they reach a crisis stage again, which is intended to avoid another taxpayer bailout.

Recent news suggests, however, that those orderly bankruptcy plans are not yet workable.

Two top federal regulators said last week that five of the nation’s biggest banks still do not have credible plans to dissolve themselves in the event of another financial crisis.

The Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said five big banks, including JP Morgan and Bank of America, do not have workable plans for winding down with an orderly bankruptcy in a financial crisis — and that would mean another federal bailout.

This warning from federal regulators is the second time some of the biggest banks have failed the so-called living will feature of Dodd-Frank. The latest rejection of five banks’ plans means they now have until Oct. 1 to make adjustments to their plans.

The Dodd-Frank legislation gives the banks two years to come up with workable plans for orderly bankruptcy in the event of another crisis. If after that time they have not done so, regulators can force the banks to sell off businesses or assets to become smaller and less complex so they pose less risk to the entire financial system.

Supporters of the Dodd-Frank law, including Clinton, argue that the rejection by federal regulators of the five big banks’ living wills is a good thing, showing the regulators are taking a tough look at Wall Street.

Critics, including Sanders, point to the fact the banks that were too big to fail in 2008 are bigger now and that their financial and political power is too great, to the point of corruption.

While many people see the 2008 financial crisis as history and Congress acts as if it addressed the risk of another financial crisis, it’s clear from last week’s actions by federal regulators that financial reform in the United States is unfinished business, and risks remain.