July 2026 Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2026-07-31

Policy becomes effective for authorized financial services provided to persons or entities located in Venezuela

2027-01-29 Deadline

End of the stated commitment period for the agencies’ enforcement-policy non-action position

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm whether any Venezuela-related activity is specifically authorized under applicable OFAC sanctions licenses or other authorizations before relying on the policy.
• Institutions may wish to verify that their BSA/AML compliance program is currently in place and that they continue to make reasonable efforts to meet applicable BSA Requirements during the relief period.
• Firms may wish to review whether they have had a final BSA-related enforcement action by FinCEN or their primary federal regulator within the prior 24 months, as that would disqualify reliance on the commitment.
• Operational teams may wish to document the basis for treating transactions as covered authorized financial services in Venezuela and retain evidence supporting reliance on the enforcement-policy statement.

What changed

The agencies announced a temporary enforcement-policy commitment covering authorized financial services provided to persons or entities located in Venezuela from 2026-07-31 through 2027-01-29. During that period, the agencies state they will not take supervisory action, including citing a violation of law, or pursue an enforcement action against a supervised financial institution for BSA Requirement issues arising from such authorized services. The commitment applies only if the institution is currently compliant with an applicable BSA compliance program requirement and continues to make...

Key dates

2026-06-24

Venezuela experienced a pair of strong earthquakes off the northern coast west of Caracas, triggering the humanitarian crisis referenced by the agencies.

2026-07-27

FinCEN issued a substantively similar statement of enforcement policy regarding Venezuela-related financial services.

2026-07-31

The OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA issued the joint enforcement policy.

2026-07-31

Start of the period during which authorized financial services to persons or entities in Venezuela are covered by the enforcement commitment.

2027-01-29 Deadline

End of the covered period for the joint enforcement commitment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm whether current Venezuela-related activity falls within the scope of authorized financial services covered by the joint statement.
• Institutions may wish to verify that their BSA compliance program remains current and that ongoing controls reflect reasonable efforts to comply during the relief period.
• Firms may wish to check whether they have had any final FinCEN or OCC enforcement action involving BSA violations in the prior 24 months before relying on the policy.
• Sanctions teams may wish to confirm continued compliance with all applicable OFAC-administered sanctions regulations and authorizations.
• Institutions with Venezuela exposure may wish to document how they will evidence reliance on the policy and monitor the January 29, 2027 end date.

What changed

The agencies stated that eligible U.S. financial institutions that choose to provide authorized financial services to persons or entities in Venezuela will not be subject to supervisory action, including a citation for a violation of law, or enforcement action related to a Bank Secrecy Act requirement, for those services. The commitment is limited to authorized financial services provided from 2026-07-31 through 2027-01-29 and applies only to statutes or regulations specifically addressed in the joint statement.

Key dates

2026-07-31

FDIC Board approved the two notices of proposed rulemaking by notational vote

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the forthcoming NPRM text and accompanying Financial Institution Letter for specific amendments to CRA and insider-lending requirements.
• Banks may wish to map current CRA policies, monitoring, and documentation against the existing regulation to identify where process changes could be needed if the proposal is adopted.
• Institutions may wish to review insider-credit approval, reporting, and conflict-management controls so they can assess whether the proposal would require policy or system updates.
• Stakeholders may wish to monitor the comment period and prepare submissions if the proposals raise operational, prudential, or conduct concerns.

What changed

The Board approved a proposed update to the FDIC’s **Community Reinvestment Act regulations**, which may affect how covered institutions are evaluated for community reinvestment performance and related compliance expectations. The Board also approved a proposed rule on **extensions of credit to insiders**, indicating possible changes to the FDIC’s insider lending restrictions, governance controls, and related reporting or approval requirements.

Key dates

2026-07-31

OCC Bulletin 2026-35 issued; interagency proposed CRA rule released

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current CRA inventories against the proposed lending-focused retail services framework to identify deposit-service items that could lose CRA consideration.
• Firms may wish to review community development grant and donation controls to determine whether documentation exists to show direct use for a qualifying primary-purpose community development activity.
• Large banks may wish to assess whether recipient overhead data, written commitments, attestations, tax filings, and budget records would be available to support the proposed 15% overhead limitation.
• Banks near the $1 billion and $10 billion thresholds may wish to model whether the proposed size reclassification would change their CRA evaluation approach, reporting obligations, or supervisory expectations.
• Institutions using or considering strategic plans may wish to reassess whether the proposal would make that option more operationally feasible under the revised framework.
• CRA and public-disclosure teams may wish to inventory public file and notice processes to determine whether technology-enabled publication changes would require procedural updates.

What changed

['The proposal would narrow the retail banking services analyzed under CRA to focus on credit services and would exclude deposit services from that component of the evaluation, while giving greater weight to activities with a lending nexus.', 'Community development grants would count only if they are directly used for a plan, project, or initiative with community development as a primary purpose; for large banks, defined as banks with assets over $10 billion, the recipient would also need documented overhead costs not exceeding 15% of the grant amount.', 'The bank-size framework would be...

Key dates

2026-07-31

OCC and FDIC issued the joint proposal amending CRA rules

2026-10-01 Deadline

Approximate comment deadline, calculated as 60 days after the July 31, 2026 publication date if the proposal was published in the Federal Register on the same day as the release

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether current CRA strategies rely materially on deposit services, since the proposal would exclude deposit services from the retail banking services analysis.
• Firms may wish to map all community development grants and donations to identify whether documentation would support that funds are used for the primary purpose of community development and reach the intended assessment areas.
• Banks with assets at or below $10 billion may wish to assess the operational impact of being relieved from data collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements under the proposal.
• Institutions may wish to compare their current CRA performance-test approach against the proposed lending-focused framework and identify activities that could lose or gain CRA consideration.
• Compliance functions may wish to track the Federal Register publication date closely, because the comment window runs for 60 days after publication.

What changed

['The agencies said the proposal would keep the core CRA framework that has generally been in place since 1995, while making substantive, technical, and process-oriented revisions. The proposal follows the agencies’ October 24, 2023 CRA final rules, which were enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before they became effective.', 'The proposal would place greater emphasis on lending performance and would narrow the retail banking services considered under CRA to credit services, expressly excluding deposit services from that part of the analysis.', 'The...

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board requested comment on the proposed Regulation O modernization

2026-10-05 Deadline

Expected comment deadline stated in the Federal Register notice

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current insider-credit controls, approval thresholds, and disclosure workflows against the proposed higher dollar limits.
• Banks may wish to identify products and systems affected by Regulation O exceptions, including credit cards, overdraft lines, and other-purpose loans.
• Institutions may wish to review whether any existing insider or related-interest procedures depend on legacy interpretations that the proposal would codify or reorganize.
• Firms with investment fund ownership structures may wish to assess whether the proposed relief for passive interests would change current principal-shareholder or control analyses.
• Interested parties may wish to prepare comments for the Federal Register comment period once publication occurs, as the proposal states comments are due 60 days after publication.

What changed

The proposal would increase several outdated dollar-based thresholds in Regulation O, including the amounts tied to certain credit card exceptions, overdraft exceptions, executive officer loans for other purposes, and the level at which prior board approval is required. It would also establish an indexing methodology so the thresholds are automatically adjusted over time based on cumulative nominal GDP growth, reducing the need for repeated rulemaking. The Federal Reserve also says the proposal would address unnecessary applications of the rule to passive interests in companies held by...

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board issued the request for comment on the proposal.

2026-08-04

Federal Register publication date referenced in the available materials.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after Federal Register publication, according to secondary reporting and the referenced publication timeline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether the institution falls within the mutual banking organization or mutual holding company framework and assess whether the proposal would affect capital planning.
• Firms may wish to evaluate existing and planned capital instruments to determine whether they could qualify as regulatory capital under the proposed clarification.
• Institutions may wish to review dividend-waiver, conversion, and other mutual-structure processes for possible operational or governance changes under the proposal.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comment letters on capital treatment, loss-absorption, conflicts of interest, accountability, and competition effects, consistent with the issues highlighted by the Board statement.

What changed

The proposal would modernize the Board’s rules applicable to mutual banking organizations, including mutual holding companies, for the first time in about 30 years. It would clarify which instruments may count as regulatory capital, expand flexibility for certain mutual banks to raise capital, and reduce procedural burdens. The Board’s memo says the proposal would amend Regulation MM and the capital rule to address limited access to equity and costly, unclear requirements.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Joint ESA statement on ICT risks from frontier AI models in the EU financial sector published

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and planned uses of frontier AI models (including large language models and other advanced generative or predictive systems) to current ICT risk and cyber resilience frameworks under Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA) to demonstrate that these models are covered by documented risk assessments, controls and monitoring.
• Firms should consider reviewing governance arrangements for frontier AI, including board and senior management oversight, clear accountability, and integration of AI-related ICT risks into the firm’s risk appetite, risk taxonomy and operational risk frameworks, with specific escalation and reporting lines.
• Risk and technology functions may wish to update ICT and cyber risk management policies to explicitly address frontier AI threats (e.g. prompt injection, model poisoning, data leakage, adversarial attacks) and to align detection, logging and incident response capabilities with the ESAs’ emphasis on prevention, detection and management of AI-related cyber risks.
• Operational resilience teams should consider conducting scenario analysis and testing around frontier AI incidents (such as compromised AI-enabled customer interaction tools or automated decision engines) to evidence the ability to maintain critical services in line with DORA requirements on ICT-related incident management and business continuity.
• Compliance and procurement teams may wish to review contracts and due diligence for critical ICT third‑party providers that supply or host frontier AI models, assessing how provider controls, service levels and incident processes meet DORA expectations and the ESAs’ focus on frontier AI risks.
• Supervisory engagement teams should consider preparing to discuss the firm’s frontier AI strategy, risk management and governance with competent authorities, using the ESA statement as a reference point for how existing supervisory expectations on ICT risk and cyber resilience are applied to AI use cases.
• Internal audit and second‑line control functions may wish to plan thematic reviews of frontier AI deployments to assess coverage of AI-specific ICT risks within existing control frameworks, including documentation quality, model oversight, and alignment with DORA and sectoral guidance.
• Firms should consider monitoring forthcoming ESA and national competent authority publications on frontier AI and DORA oversight activities, as the statement signals that supervisory practices and expectations in this area are evolving and may be further operationalised.

What changed

The publication introduces a consolidated supervisory expectation that frontier AI models be treated explicitly as a source of ICT and cyber risk within existing EU operational resilience and ICT risk management frameworks, rather than as a separate technology domain. It emphasises the need for robust governance, risk management, and controls around the prevention, detection and management of cyber risks stemming from frontier AI, including model governance, validation, monitoring and incident handling.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Launch of the public consultation on DPM 2.1 and publication of naming conventions for metadata used in reporting

2026-09-30 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the DPM 2.1 public consultation

2023-06-01

Publication month of DPM Standard 2.0 by EBA and EIOPA, establishing the current baseline data dictionary standard

2024-03-01

Establishment of the DPM Alliance joint governance framework by EBA, EIOPA and ECB to extend DPM to ECB statistical reporting

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the DPM 2.1 factsheet and the published naming conventions to understand proposed changes in metadata versioning, logical data model support and naming structures, and how these could impact existing COREP, FINREP, resolution and insurance reporting implementations.
• Regulatory reporting and technology teams should consider mapping current data dictionaries and reporting taxonomies (including those used for CRR/CRD prudential reports, BRRD/SRB resolution reports and EIOPA insurance and pensions reports) against the DPM 2.1 metamodel to assess the scale of future migration effort and potential system changes.
• Firms should consider engaging in the consultation process, either directly or via industry bodies, to provide feedback on the practicality of the proposed metamodel and naming conventions, particularly where they affect multi-framework reporting or large-scale data integration projects.
• Compliance and regulatory change functions may wish to flag DPM 2.1 internally as a strategic development in EU reporting architecture and ensure it is reflected in medium-term reporting transformation programmes, including planning for alignment with the ESCB Integrated Reporting Framework (IReF).
• Reporting vendors and in-house IT teams should consider evaluating whether their current regulatory reporting tools and data models can support DPM 2.1’s enhanced versioning and logical data model capabilities, and identify potential design changes needed to remain aligned with future EBA, EIOPA and ECB requirements.
• Supervisory liaison and public policy teams may wish to monitor subsequent EBA, EIOPA, ECB and SRB communications following the close of the consultation for indications of timelines when DPM 2.1 and the naming conventions will become expected or mandatory for specific reporting frameworks.

What changed

The DPM Alliance is consulting on DPM 2.1, an updated version of the DPM metadata model that introduces enhanced metadata versioning and extends the metamodel to host logical data models, with the explicit objective of supporting integrated European reporting across all regulatory frameworks in the financial sphere. The consultation also covers newly published naming conventions that set out a common approach for naming metadata used in reporting, designed to ensure consistent use of the common data dictionary across regulatory reporting frameworks.

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / 2027)

- Potential adoption of final rules on affiliations requirements, depending on the volume and content of comments and Commission deliberations

TBD (mid‑2026) Deadline

- Federal Register publication date of the NPRM on affiliations (the comment deadline will run for 60 days from this publication; firms should monitor the Federal Register and CFTC website to confirm the exact date)

30 July 2026

- CFTC issues press release announcing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on affiliations among CFTC‑regulated entities and indicates that comments will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register

TBD (60 days after Federal Register publication)

- End of public comment period on the proposed amendments to Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55 concerning affiliations and vertically integrated market structures

Suggested considerations

• Identify and map all affiliate relationships involving CFTC‑regulated entities within your group (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, SD/MSP, trading entities, market makers) and document how roles and control relationships could create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing governance, conflicts‑of‑interest, information‑barrier, and supervision frameworks against the anticipated principles‑based expectations for vertically integrated structures under Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance board‑level and committee‑level oversight arrangements for affiliated entities to ensure independent decision‑making on listing, clearing, rule enforcement, membership, and client treatment where affiliates are involved.
• Assess current customer risk disclosures, including those required under regulation 1.55 for FCMs, to determine whether affiliate relationships and related conflicts are adequately described, and prepare draft revisions that could be implemented if the new requirements are finalized.
• Engage legal, compliance, and business stakeholders for each affected entity (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, trading entity) to prepare a coordinated comment letter to the CFTC explaining operational impacts, potential unintended consequences, and recommendations on specific rule language.

What changed

• - Introduces principles‑based requirements for vertically integrated market structures involving affiliations between derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, swap execution...
• Amends Part 37 to set additional governance, conflict‑management, and structural requirements for swap execution facilities where the SEF is affiliated with an intermediary or trading entity.
• Amends Part 38 to impose enhanced conflict‑of‑interest and self‑regulatory safeguards for designated contract markets that are affiliated with futures commission merchants or proprietary trading...
• Amends Part 39 to clarify and strengthen requirements on derivatives clearing organizations in group structures where the DCO is affiliated with intermediaries or other market participants, including...
• Amends regulation 1.52 (accounts and records; FCM supervisory requirements) to reflect the heightened expectations placed on futures commission merchants that are part of vertically integrated...

Key dates

2026-07-01

Revisions to the CBLR framework became effective, including the lower 8% threshold and revised grace-period rules

2026-07-30

OCC Bulletin 2026-34 published the updated Community Bank Compliance Guide

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether current capital planning and reporting processes reflect the revised 8% CBLR entry threshold.
• Firms that use or may elect the CBLR framework may wish to reassess whether they can remain above the 7% grace-period floor during any temporary noncompliance.
• Banks may wish to confirm how the four-quarter cure period and the eight-quarter cap over five years would operate in their internal capital contingency planning.
• Community banking organizations may wish to reconcile the updated guide with the text of the capital rule, since the guide is only a summary and not binding legal text.

What changed

The agencies revised the non-binding compliance guide to align with the updated CBLR framework in the capital rule. The key substantive change is the minimum leverage ratio for CBLR qualification, which was lowered from greater than 9% to greater than 8%. The grace period for a bank that elects the CBLR framework but temporarily fails to meet the qualifying criteria was revised from two quarters to four quarters, provided the bank maintains a leverage ratio greater than 7% and does not exceed eight quarters in grace-period status over a five-year period.

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026–2027)

- CBI will integrate the Supplemental Guidance with the Main Guidance on Fitness and Probity Investigations, Suspensions and Prohibitions as part of its wider implementation of a recent High Court judgment relating to F&P enforcement procedures

28 January 2026

- CBI launches Consultation Paper 166 on Supplemental Guidance relating to Prohibition Notices under the Fitness and Probity regime

11 March 2026

- CBI hosts an industry webinar on the Supplemental Guidance on Prohibition Notices under the Fitness and Probity regime

25 March 2026

- CP166 consultation period closes; CBI receives eight submissions from representative bodies and individuals

30 July 2026

- CBI publishes the final Supplemental Guidance on Prohibition Notices under the Fitness and Probity Regime and the Feedback Statement on CP166

Suggested considerations

• Update Fitness and Probity policies, procedures, and governance frameworks to explicitly address the possibility of Prohibition Notices, including criteria for escalation, internal investigation standards, record‑keeping, and engagement protocols with the CBI during prohibition-related processes.
• Ensure Board and senior management, including PCF role holders and HR/legal/compliance leads, are briefed on the new prohibition guidance, the publication policy, and the enhanced transparency of outcomes so that they understand the personal and organisational consequences of F&P failings.
• Strengthen documentation and retention of supervisory, disciplinary, compliance and performance records for CF and PCF holders to ensure that, if a prohibition is contemplated, the firm can provide a coherent, contemporaneous factual record to the CBI and the individual.
• Review and, where necessary, amend individual accountability frameworks (including Statements of Responsibilities and role profiles) to clearly delineate responsibilities, seniority and CF scope, given that these factors now explicitly influence the nature, scope and duration of any prohibition.
• Embed procedures to manage individuals who become subject to proposed or actual Prohibition Notices, including immediate role restrictions, notification workflows, communication protocols to boards and key stakeholders, and contingency planning for business continuity.

What changed

• - The Supplemental Guidance formally sets out the circumstances and general principles the CBI’s Prohibition Decision Maker will consider when deciding whether to impose a Prohibition Notice,...
• The guidance clarifies the decision-making framework for the nature, scope and duration of a prohibition, including whether it applies to specific controlled functions (CFs), parts of CFs, or any...
• The guidance codifies how a Prohibition Notice becomes effective, establishing that effectiveness arises either through a written agreement between the CBI and the individual concerned (prohibition...
• The guidance explains the three mechanisms by which a Prohibition Notice may be terminated or cease to have effect: (1) termination of a prohibition agreement by the CBI, (2) revocation of a...
• The Supplemental Guidance sets out CBI’s approach to requests by prohibited persons to terminate a prohibition agreement, including the factors CBI will assess when considering whether to lift or...

Key dates

31 December 2023

(assumed financial year end for 2023) – End of the 2023 financial year for Leo International Precision Health AG, starting the four‑month period for the annual financial information announcement

30 April 2024

– Latest permissible date for publishing the announcement stating from which date and at which web address the 2023 annual financial information is made publicly available (four months after year‑end)

30 June 2024

– Latest permissible date for publishing the half‑yearly financial report for the first half of the 2024 financial year (three months after the end of the reporting period, assuming 31 March 2024 as period end)

08 July 2026 Deadline

– BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €20,000 on Leo International Precision Health AG for failure to publish the required annual announcement for 2023 and the half‑yearly financial report for 2024 within the prescribed periods

30 July 2026

– Public announcement by BaFin of the enforcement measure and fine against Leo International Precision Health AG

Suggested considerations

• Map all WpHG‑related periodic reporting obligations (annual, half‑yearly, and any interim or ad‑hoc requirements) into a documented compliance calendar with responsible owners and system reminders well ahead of statutory deadlines.
• Implement a formal procedure to prepare, approve, and publish “Hinweisbekanntmachungen” that clearly specify the date and internet address of annual financial information, ensuring publication before the first public availability of the annual report and within four months of financial year‑end.
• Establish controls to guarantee that annual financial information is published both in the Company Register and on the issuer’s website, and that these publications are synchronised with the required announcements.
• Design and enforce a process for producing and publishing half‑yearly financial reports within three months after the end of each reporting period, including clear timelines for drafting, audit/review (where relevant), management approval, and technical website publication.
• Conduct a gap analysis of current financial reporting and disclosure procedures against WpHG requirements to identify any missing steps, unclear responsibilities, or weaknesses in escalation mechanisms for imminent deadline breaches.

What changed

• - Issuers domiciled in Germany with securities admitted to trading on an organised market in Germany must publish an announcement (“Hinweisbekanntmachung”) specifying the exact date and internet...
• The announcement on annual financial information must be published no later than four months after the end of each financial year and must be issued before the first public availability of the...
• Annual financial information must be made publicly available on the internet in addition to its disclosure in the Company Register (Unternehmensregister), and the announcement obligation relates...
• Issuers must publish a half‑yearly financial report no later than three months after the end of each reporting period.
• Failure to publish financial reports or the required announcements, or failure to do so within the prescribed periods, constitutes a contravention of the WpHG and exposes the issuer to administrative...

Key dates

31 December 2024

– Solvency UK reporting and disclosure reforms (phase 2) come into effect for reporting and disclosure reference dates on or after 31 December 2024, including the new Bank of England insurance XBRL taxonomy and removal of the Regular Supervisory Report requirement

Year‑end 2026 reporting (reference date 31 December 2026)

– Implementation of PS18/26 reporting and disclosure changes and Own Funds consequential reporting via a **single updated insurance taxonomy**, covering all amended templates, instructions, MALIR XBRL submissions and new FSCS projected liabilities data for third‑country branches

30 September 2026

– Liquidity reporting requirements for UK Solvency UK insurers with large derivatives and securities financing transaction exposures come into force, requiring firms above specified thresholds to commence new liquidity reporting

31 December 2026 Deadline

– Revocation of certain Solvency UK Modifications by Consent (including the Reporting MbC) becomes effective; affected third‑country branches meeting premium or provisions thresholds must submit the full branch reporting suite

Suggested considerations

• Review and map existing Solvency UK reporting processes, systems and controls against the amended Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook and updated templates and instructions to identify required changes for year‑end 2026.
• Engage with finance, risk and actuarial functions to implement the new XBRL‑based MALIR submission process, including testing data extraction, validation and filing workflows aligned to the updated insurance taxonomy.
• Update internal Own Funds policies, classification procedures and governance documentation to reflect removal of specified permission requirements and the amended Own Funds Part and Group Supervision Part of the PRA Rulebook.
• Reconfigure regulatory reporting infrastructure and vendor solutions to adopt the single updated PRA insurance XBRL taxonomy, ensuring all Solvency UK quantitative reporting templates and narrative disclosures are correctly mapped and validated.
• For third‑country branch undertakings, design and implement processes to calculate and report projected FSCS liabilities data in line with PRA expectations, including data sourcing, modelling assumptions and internal review controls.

What changed

• - The PRA finalises amendments to the Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook to implement post‑implementation clarifications, consistency improvements and data quality enhancements to Solvency UK...
• Reporting and disclosure templates and instructions are amended (including XBRL taxonomy changes) to reflect the refined Solvency UK reporting framework and consequential changes from the Own Funds...
• The PRA confirms transfer of the Matching Adjustment Asset and Liability Information Return (MALIR) templates from Excel to XBRL submission format, to be incorporated into the single insurance...
• The PRA updates Supervisory Statement 7/18 – Solvency II: Matching adjustment, including changes to the Matching Adjustment supplementary information form under Insurance rule permissions and...
• The PRA introduces a new collection of projected Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) liabilities data from third‑country branch undertakings to support enhanced branch supervision.

Key dates

11 September 2026

- Consultation end date for proposals to amend SS25/15, SS26/15, IM.03 instructions, and the PRA liquidity rules (Liquidity (CRR) Part and LCR (CRR) Part)

31 December 2026 Deadline

- Proposed implementation date for the SS25/15 and SS26/15 changes and removal of Lloyd’s syndicates from IMO reporting, so syndicates are not required to report IMOs as part of their 2026 year‑end results

01 January 2027

- Proposed implementation date for amendments to the Liquidity (CRR) Part and Liquidity Coverage Ratio (CRR) Part, aligned with Basel 3.1 implementation, CRR restatement in the PRA Rulebook, and the expected entry into force of the Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026

Suggested considerations

• Review existing IMO reporting processes and systems for Lloyd’s syndicates and prepare to decommission IMO submissions to the PRA for 2026 year‑end, ensuring all dependent internal reports and controls are updated.
• Map all uses of IMOs in ORSA processes and supervisory reporting for non‑life firms, and update ORSA documentation and methodologies to reflect that the IMO‑based option applies only to firms that remain in scope of IMO reporting.
• Update internal reporting manuals and instructions for IM.03 and related Solvency UK templates to reflect the revised PRA wording, removal of outdated EU references, and alignment with the PRA’s Solvency UK framework.
• For Lloyd’s managing agents and syndicates, confirm alternative data channels and reporting obligations to the PRA (via Lloyd’s or Solvency UK templates) that will replace the supervisory reliance previously placed on IMO reporting.
• Conduct an inventory of non‑UK covered bonds currently recognised as Level 2A HQLA in LCR calculations and assess how the proposed amendments to Article 11(1)(d)(ii) would change eligibility, haircuts, or caps from 1 January 2027.

What changed

• - Lloyd’s syndicates would be removed from the scope of Internal Model Output (IMO) reporting to the PRA via amendments to SS25/15 (Solvency II: Regulatory reporting, internal model outputs),...
• SS26/15 (Solvency II: ORSA and the ultimate time horizon – non‑life firms) would be amended to clarify that the option to use IMO outputs in ORSA reporting applies only to firms still required to...
• The IM.03 reporting instructions (section “General Comment”) would be amended to align the reporting template guidance with the removal of Lloyd’s syndicates from IMO reporting, avoiding inconsistent...
• SS25/15 and SS26/15 would receive non‑substantive drafting updates to improve clarity and consistency, remove outdated EU references, and align terminology and framing with the PRA’s current Solvency...
• For 2026 year‑end, Lloyd’s syndicates would no longer be required to submit IMOs to the PRA, with supervisory reliance instead on other Solvency UK reporting streams and data provided through the...

Key dates

January 2021

- Start of the period during which Financière Fonds Privés is found to have committed unauthorised placement and advisory breaches

October 2024

- End of the factual period examined by the AMF Enforcement Committee for the identified breaches

TBD (post‑21 July 2026)

- Potential appeal phase before the Conseil d’État; the decision indicates that an appeal may be lodged, so firms should monitor for any subsequent case law impacting interpretation of CIF professional obligations

21 July 2026

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision imposing fines of €100,000 on Financière Fonds Privés, €70,000 on Pierre‑Michel Deléglise, and €40,000 on Thierry de Chambure, and attributing all breaches to the two senior managers

28 July 2026

- Public announcement of the decision via AMF news release

Suggested considerations

• Review the firm’s regulatory status (CIF versus investment services provider) and ensure that any placement or capital‑raising activities are within authorised limits; discontinue or re‑authorise any non‑guaranteed placement services currently carried out under CIF status.
• Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all services and activities (advisory, marketing, introductions, distribution) to confirm that none constitute regulated investment services (e.g., non‑guaranteed placement) without the requisite AMF/ACPR authorisation.
• Inventory all remuneration flows from issuers and third parties, including commissions, retrocessions and fees, and assess whether they are compatible with any independence claims and MiFID II inducements rules; remove or re‑label “independent” branding where issuer remuneration is received.
• Update client‑facing documentation (engagement letters, brochures, websites, emails) to provide clear, accurate and non‑misleading information on adviser independence, remuneration model, and any relationships with issuers or introducers.
• Implement or enhance procedures to ensure a written suitability statement is produced and delivered to clients for each piece of investment advice, documenting client profile, recommended products and rationale; integrate this into advisory workflows and record‑keeping.

What changed

• - Financial investment advisors must not conduct non‑guaranteed placement services (service de placement non garanti) such as actively seeking subscribers on behalf of issuers, unless they hold the...
• Firms that present themselves as independent advisors must not receive remuneration (direct or indirect) from product issuers whose instruments they recommend, unless permitted under MiFID II/French...
• When claiming independence, firms must provide accurate, clear and non‑misleading information on the nature of their independence, remuneration model, and any relationships with issuers or...
• Financial investment advisors must issue a written suitability statement formalising the investment advice provided, setting out the client’s profile, the recommended products, and the reasons why...
• Pre‑contractual documentation must include full information on costs, fees and remuneration, covering both the advised investment and any business introducer partners; omission of these disclosures...

Key dates

19 September 2022 – 7 October 2022

- Approximate three‑week period during which LFSHK’s systems were restored in phases and clients could not trade via mobile app or internet platform, relying only on account executives to place orders

19 September 2022

- Ransomware attack on LFSHK’s critical IT infrastructure, affecting servers and core trading‑related systems

7 October 2022

- Completion of LFSHK’s system restoration following the ransomware attack

TBD (post‑incident)

- LFSHK conducted internal reviews and appointed an independent reviewer at the SFC’s request to assess the incident and cybersecurity internal controls; exact dates are not specified but occurred after the attack and prior to enforcement

TBD (enforcement publication date)

- SFC issues public disciplinary action reprimanding and fining LFSHK HK$2.1 million for misconduct relating to inadequate cybersecurity controls; the reference number indicates 2026 publication but the precise calendar date is not specified in the excerpt

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment and control gap analysis across all critical systems, including trading platforms, email servers, domain controllers, file servers, and accounting systems.
• Implement and regularly review firewall configurations and network monitoring tools to ensure effective protection and detection capabilities for internal and external network traffic.
• Upgrade all operating systems and antivirus software to supported, fully patched versions and establish formal patch and vulnerability management procedures with defined timelines and testing steps.
• Establish and enforce robust user access management policies, including least‑privilege access, periodic recertification of user and privileged accounts, and logging and monitoring of admin activities.
• Implement secure password management solutions and technical controls, eliminating unencrypted storage of credentials and enforcing strong password complexity, rotation, and multi‑factor authentication where applicable.

What changed

• - Licensed corporations must ensure that firewall protection and network monitoring are implemented and effective across critical infrastructure, including file servers, domain controllers, email...
• Licensed corporations must maintain up‑to‑date operating systems and antivirus software, avoiding end‑of‑life or unpatched environments that materially increase vulnerability to ransomware and other...
• Firms must enforce strong user access and privileged account controls, including robust administration of system admin accounts, least‑privilege access models, periodic reviews of access rights, and...
• Firms must implement secure password management practices, prohibiting the storage of credentials in unencrypted files and enforcing strong password policies and technical controls for credential...
• Remote access must be subject to strict controls, including secure configuration of VPN or other remote access solutions, need‑to‑have access principles, and monitoring for unusual or unauthorized...

Key dates

2026-06-25

CFTC published the original request for comment in the Federal Register at 91 FR 38334

2026-07-08

CME NYMEX self-certified a 24/7 oil contract

2026-07-09

CFTC stayed the self-certified 24/7 oil contract

2026-07-28

CFTC published the extension of the comment period at 91 FR 47158

2026-08-26 Deadline

Extended comment deadline for the request for comment

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether existing trading, clearing, settlement, surveillance, and customer-protection controls would function on a 24/7 basis.
• Firms may wish to review the CFTC’s additional questions on the stayed CME NYMEX crude oil contract and consider whether their comments should address execution, settlement, market integrity, and operational resilience issues.
• Market participants may wish to prepare data-driven comments, because the CFTC’s consultation is focused on factual and empirical input rather than conclusory policy statements.
• Firms considering perpetual or around-the-clock products may wish to map any dependencies on payment systems, margin processes, and holiday/weekend operational support before submitting comments.

What changed

This publication does not impose a new binding rule; it extends the comment deadline for an existing request for comment by 30 days. The underlying consultation covers two issues: whether standard futures contracts, including energy futures, can trade on a 24/7 basis without changing expiration, delivery, or settlement terms, and whether perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities should be permitted.

Key dates

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty came into force for open products and services and firms were expected to have outcomes monitoring capability in place from day one

31 July 2024 Deadline

- The final Consumer Duty implementation deadline applied to all in-scope financial services firms

2025

- The FCA reviewed firms’ approaches to outcomes monitoring over the past year and published its findings in this blog and related review material

TBD (ongoing)

- Firms are expected to continue regular monitoring, testing, and evidence-gathering on an ongoing basis under PRIN 2A.9

Suggested considerations

• Firms must establish and maintain a documented outcomes monitoring framework that defines good and poor customer outcomes for each relevant product or service.
• Firms must map metrics to the full customer journey, including product design, communications, customer support, and distribution arrangements.
• Firms must collect MI that can identify poor or potentially poor outcomes, root causes, and emerging risks before harm crystallises.
• Firms must document the rationale for each metric, threshold, and tolerance, including why those measures are appropriate for the customer population and product.
• Firms must maintain a clear audit trail linking MI, governance review, decisions, remediation, and outcome improvement testing.

What changed

• - The FCA expects firms to regularly assess, test, understand, and evidence the outcomes retail customers are receiving under the Consumer Duty.
• Firms should use monitoring to identify whether any group of retail customers is experiencing different outcomes from another group for the same product and understand why those differences exist.
• Monitoring frameworks should define what good outcomes look like in practice and translate those outcomes into measurable indicators tied to the customer journey.
• Firms should not rely on broad or high-level MI alone; they must use information to challenge performance, identify risks, and drive improvements.
• Firms should be able to explain why metrics and tolerances were chosen and whether any actions taken have been tested and shown to reduce harm or friction.

Key dates

27 April 2012

- CISIAM became licensed under the Securities and Futures Ordinance to carry on Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities

03 June 2013

- CISIAM obtained a licence to carry on Type 5 (advising on futures contracts) regulated activity

August 2019

- Start of the period during which CISIAM’s failures as fund manager occurred in relation to the Tahoe Life‑related private fund

September 2020

- End of the period during which CISIAM’s failures in managing the private fund took place

Suggested considerations

• Review and update private fund governance frameworks to ensure investment approvals require independent investment discretion, documented due diligence, and explicit challenge of investor‑driven proposals, particularly those originating from client senior management.
• Implement or enhance written procedures to identify “dubious arrangements”, including criteria such as unnecessary structural complexity, unclear commercial rationale, additional costs or risks, related‑party exposure, and potential concealment of asset movements or connected transactions.
• Establish a mandatory escalation and approval process for complex or investor‑driven transactions, requiring risk, compliance, and senior management sign‑off before execution and documented reasoning for proceeding.
• Conduct a gap analysis of all existing private funds to confirm that current and past investments comply with the funds’ investment restrictions and stated objectives, and remediate any breaches including client notification and corrective actions where appropriate.
• Strengthen risk management frameworks for private funds by defining key risk types, setting monitoring thresholds, and implementing periodic risk reporting to senior management and the board.

What changed

• - Asset managers must maintain and apply documented procedures and controls to identify whether proposed private fund arrangements or transactions are dubious, including where structures are...
• Where a proposed arrangement or transaction is assessed as dubious, asset managers may only proceed once they are satisfied that concerns and red flags have been sufficiently addressed and evidenced.
• Fund managers are expected to exercise independent investment discretion and cannot rely solely on investor‑driven proposals, especially from influential client personnel such as chief investment...
• Asset managers must ensure that all fund investments comply with the fund’s stated investment restrictions and align with its stated investment objectives, with documented controls to verify...
• Firms must implement effective measures to identify, manage, and continuously monitor the risks to which private funds are exposed, including counterparty, concentration, structural, and...

Key dates

01 November 2023 Deadline

– Start of the period during which BSSIHK allowed wash trades to be executed due to inadequate internal controls

March 2024

– BSSIHK introduced a pre‑trade interception arrangement for wash trades, which the SFC later found to be insufficient because it relied mainly on manual intervention and only after repeated wash trade instances

13 September 2025

– End of the period examined by the SFC during which 1,021 pairs of wash trades were executed through BSSIHK client accounts

Suggested considerations

• Review existing trade surveillance frameworks (both pre‑trade and post‑trade) to ensure they can reliably identify wash trades, including same‑account and related‑account trades with no change in beneficial ownership.
• Implement or enhance automated pre‑trade controls that can detect and automatically block or hold suspected wash trades before execution, rather than relying primarily on manual dealer intervention after the fact.
• Re‑design alert logic so that each suspicious wash trade or pair of trades is counted as a separate event, including multiple events in the same client account on the same day, and ensure escalation thresholds reflect this.
• Calibrate surveillance parameters to cover all relevant product types, including Hong Kong‑listed stocks, warrants and other structured products commonly used by clients.
• Document and update internal policies and procedures to explicitly prohibit wash trades, define wash trading typologies, and describe detection, escalation and blocking processes.

What changed

• - Firms conducting Type 1, 4 or 7 regulated activities are expected to maintain both pre‑trade and post‑trade surveillance capable of detecting wash trades and other manipulative patterns, rather...
• Pre‑trade interception controls that depend primarily on manual intervention (e.g. dealer intervention after alerts) are deemed inadequate where the controls allow suspicious trades to proceed until...
• Surveillance logic must treat multiple suspicious trades in the same client account on the same day as separate events, rather than aggregating them into one “instance,” to ensure repeated misconduct...
• Trade surveillance tools and procedures must be capable of detecting wash trades across a wide universe of instruments, including both equities and structured products such as warrants.
• SFC has reaffirmed that failure to maintain adequate and effective internal controls to monitor and detect wash trades constitutes a breach of the SFC Code of Conduct and is considered contrary to...

Key dates

2026-07-24

EBA published the draft technical package for reporting framework 4.4 and opened the consultation

2026-08-24 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments and suggestions on the draft technical package 4.4 and new glossary

2026-09-30

EBA expects to publish the final technical package for reporting framework 4.4

2026-12-31

First reference date for amended Pillar 3 ESG, equity and shadow banking disclosures; technical amendments for resolution planning, MREL decisions, Pillar 3 disclosure templates; and AMLA eligibility templates

2027-03-31

First reference date for new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates and FRTB-related disclosure templates

2027-12-31

First reference date for Pillar 3 ESG, equity and shadow banking disclosures for SNCIs

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess the draft 4.4 package against current reporting architecture, especially where FINREP, Pillar 3, FRTB, resolution planning, MREL, or AMLA templates rely on local mapping or vendor implementation.
• Firms may wish to review the new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates and identify any chart-of-accounts, data lineage, or consolidation changes needed ahead of the 2027-03-31 first reference date.
• Reporting teams may wish to map the updated Pillar 3 ESG, equity exposure, and shadow banking disclosures to the 2026-12-31 reporting cycle, and to 2027-12-31 for SNCIs.
• Institutions may wish to compare their DPM 1.0 to DPM 2.0 conversion controls against the new glossary conversion file and plan for taxonomy or validation rule changes in downstream reporting tools.
• Affected firms may wish to submit comments on the draft technical package and glossary by 2026-08-24 if they have implementation concerns, data gaps, or interpretation issues.
• Compliance functions may wish to monitor the expected September 2026 final publication for changes to validation rules, AML eligibility elements, and the AMLA risk assessment 2027 templates.

What changed

The draft technical package for release 4.4 includes validation rules, the Data Point Model, XBRL taxonomies, and a new conversion file between DPM 1.0 and the DPM 2.0 glossary. It introduces amendments to the ITS on Pillar 3 disclosures on ESG risks, equity exposures and shadow banking exposures, with first reference dates of 2026-12-31 and 2027-12-31 for SNCIs. It also adds new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates, with a first reference date of 2027-03-31, and integrates FRTB-related disclosure templates into the DPM, also with a first reference date of 2027-03-31.

Key dates

13 July 2017 – 18 February 2022

- Period during which Stephen Chiu was MIC of Key Business Line, Operational Control and Review, and Overall Management Oversight at Victory

29 October 2019

- The client opened an account at Victory Securities, declared a financial profile, and expressed intention to sell securities held with another brokerage

Shortly after 29 October 2019

- The client placed two sell orders through Victory and provided statements purportedly issued by other brokerages as proof of his holdings in the relevant shares

1 April 2020 – 18 February 2022 Deadline

- Period during which Stephen Chiu was MIC of Compliance and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing at Victory

1 October 2024

- Stephen Chiu resumed his role as MIC of Overall Management Oversight at Victory

Suggested considerations

• Review and update client onboarding procedures to ensure that inconsistencies between clients’ declared financial profiles and claimed asset holdings are systematically identified, documented, and escalated for enhanced due diligence before any orders are executed.
• Implement controls requiring independent verification (e.g. direct confirmation or reliable third‑party checks) of statements and documents purportedly issued by other brokers when these are used to evidence holdings for sell orders.
• Update AML/CFT policies and procedures under AMLO and the SFC Guideline on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (For Licensed Corporations) to explicitly cover handling of suspected forged documents and false information supplied by clients.
• Establish or reinforce a formal process for promptly reporting suspected fraudulent, deceptive, or market abusive conduct by clients to the SFC, and where appropriate to JFIU, including clear internal thresholds, escalation paths, and record‑keeping.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing red flag indicators to ensure they cover situations where the size or nature of client holdings is incommensurate with the client’s stated income, net worth, occupation, or overall risk profile.

What changed

• (Strictly speaking this is an enforcement case rather than a rule change, but it effectively clarifies regulatory expectations and evidences enforcement priorities.)
• Licensed corporations must treat discrepancies between a client’s declared financial profile and purported asset holdings as material red flags, triggering enhanced KYC,...
• Firms must independently verify documents purportedly issued by other brokers, especially when used as proof of holdings for sell orders, and must not rely on such documents at face value when they...
• Licensed corporations are expected to apply risk-based AML/CFT controls to securities sell orders where there is a risk that the client may not beneficially own the assets, or where forged/false...
• Firms must report suspected fraudulent or deceptive conduct by clients to the SFC (and, where applicable, to JFIU) without delay, even where the misconduct appears confined to a single transaction or...

Key dates

2026-06-25

FinCEN published the underlying NPRM to amend the Huione Group definition

2026-06-25

Electronic comment filing became unavailable due to a portal issue

2026-06-30

Portal issue period ended after six days of blocked electronic filing

2026-07-22

FinCEN dated the comment-period extension notice

2026-07-24

Federal Register publication of the extension notice at 91 FR 46761

2026-08-02 Deadline

Extended deadline for written comments on the NPRM

Suggested considerations

• Consider whether to submit comments on the NPRM by the extended deadline of 2026-08-02.
• Review customer, correspondent, and payment relationships for any exposure to Huione Group, H-Pay Service PLC, or entities that may be treated as successor entities if the proposal is finalized.
• Assess whether internal screening, escalation, and due diligence procedures would need updates if FinCEN finalizes the expanded definition.
• Monitor FinCEN’s final action on the NPRM and any resulting special-measures scope changes under 31 CFR 1010.

What changed

This publication does not impose a new final obligation; it extends the public comment deadline for an existing NPRM. The underlying proposal would amend FinCEN’s definition of Huione Group, a financial institution operating outside the United States of primary money laundering concern, to include H-Pay Service PLC and to add a defined term for “successor entity.” The extension was granted because a technological issue with the comment portal prevented electronic filing from June 25 through June 30, 2026.

Key dates

22 June 2026

- CFTC issues the targeted request for comment on extending standard energy futures to 24/7 trading and on the listing of perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

26 July 2026 Deadline

- Original 30‑day comment deadline for the RFC on 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts (now superseded by the extension)

26 August 2026 Deadline

- Extended deadline for submission of public comments on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard energy futures and perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

Suggested considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

What changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

Key dates

End of 2026

- The ECB Governing Council is expected to make the final decision on the new banknote design

23 July 2026

- The Central Bank of Ireland publishes the press release encouraging public participation in the ECB consultation

21 September 2026

- The public survey on the shortlisted euro banknote designs closes

Suggested considerations

• Review the ECB consultation materials and assess whether your firm has any direct operational exposure to future euro banknote changes.
• Monitor ECB and Central Bank of Ireland updates for the final design decision expected around the end of 2026.
• Prepare internal stakeholder briefings for cash operations, branch operations, payments, customer service, and communications teams on the expected euro banknote redesign timeline.
• If your firm accepts or processes cash, begin a preliminary review of any systems, controls, or vendor dependencies that could be affected by future note specifications, authentication features, or rollout timing.
• Update external messaging and FAQs only after the ECB publishes the final banknote design and implementation details.

What changed

• - The ECB has published ten shortlisted design proposals for the next series of euro banknotes, based on the themes “European culture” and “Rivers and birds.”
• The ECB has opened an online public survey to gather feedback on the proposed designs.
• The survey is open until 21 September 2026.
• The ECB Governing Council is expected to make the final design decision around the end of 2026.
• The current publication does not impose any immediate compliance obligation on firms; it is a consultation and design-selection step, not an enacted regulatory rule.

Key dates

20 July 2026

- The AMF Enforcement Committee adopted the sanction decision against Uzès Gestion and two directors

23 July 2026

- The AMF published the enforcement committee news release summarising the decision

Suggested considerations

• Review the firm’s authorisation file, governance map, and executive-officer appointments to confirm that actual decision-making powers match the AMF-approved organisational structure.
• Update conflicts-of-interest procedures to capture conflicts arising from parent-company relationships, cross-directorships, and shared finance leadership roles.
• Test whether staffing levels and succession arrangements ensure continuity of human resources for control functions and key operational roles.
• Reassess remuneration arrangements for financial managers to verify consistency with the firm’s programme of activity, internal procedures, and regulatory requirements.
• Verify that all distributor retrocessions are fully disclosed to investors and that any claim of enhanced service is documented with evidence.

What changed

• - The AMF’s decision reinforces that asset managers must maintain continuous compliance with their authorisation conditions, but isolated overreach by a person not listed as an executive officer was...
• Firms must have procedures that identify and manage conflicts of interest, including conflicts arising from links with a parent company and from the overlapping functions of directors and financial...
• Asset managers must ensure continuity of human resources and align remuneration practices for financial managers with the applicable regulations, the approved programme of activity, and internal...
• Firms must disclose to investors management-fee retrocessions paid to distributors and must be able to justify any claimed enhancement of the service provided.
• Information provided to investors and prospects must be clear, accurate, and not misleading, including in marketing materials.

Key dates

Late 2026

- Expected Governing Council decision on the final design proposal for the new euro banknote series

Subsequent years (post‑2026)

- Progressive introduction of new‑series euro banknotes into circulation, co‑circulating with existing series which retain value

21 September 2026

- Closure of the ECB public online survey on the ten shortlisted euro banknote design proposals

Suggested considerations

• Establish an internal project workstream to monitor ECB communications on the banknote redesign and plan for operational impacts on cash handling, ATM networks and merchant devices.
• Conduct a preliminary impact assessment of how new banknote security and design features may affect existing banknote sorting, authentication and recycling equipment, and identify likely upgrade or replacement needs.
• Engage with ATM and cash‑handling hardware vendors to understand expected firmware, sensor and software changes required to support the new banknote series and to secure upgrade slots ahead of issuance.
• Review and update internal cash‑handling and banknote authentication procedures, including staff training materials, to incorporate new design and security features once technical specifications are published.
• Plan customer communications strategies to explain the coexistence of old and new series banknotes, reaffirm the continued validity of previous series, and address any fraud or counterfeiting concerns.

What changed

• - The ECB has published ten shortlisted design proposals for the next series of euro banknotes, based on the two themes “European culture” and “Rivers and birds”.
• An EU‑wide online public survey has been launched to collect feedback on the shortlisted designs, forming part of the ECB’s inclusive approach to banknote design.
• The ECB’s Governing Council will select a single design proposal around the end of 2026, informed by the Design Contest Jury conclusions, technical assessments and survey results.
• The chosen design will undergo further development and testing before production, including integration of new and improved security features.
• The new series of euro banknotes will be introduced into circulation in subsequent years, alongside existing series, which will retain their legal value and continue to circulate.

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a board-level review of the firm’s business model, focusing on vertical integration, ownership and financing relationships to identify where commercial incentives may misalign with customer interests and create conflicts of interest.
• Map the full insurance value chain (underwriting, distribution, premium finance, ancillary services) within the group or related parties, and document actual and potential conflicts of interest at each link and interaction point.
• Review and, where necessary, update the firm’s conflicts-of-interest policy and SYSC 10 framework to explicitly cover vertically integrated structures, premium finance arrangements, delegated authorities and any intra-group referrals.
• Establish or strengthen governance arrangements to ensure clear senior management accountability for conflicts-of-interest management, including allocation of responsibilities in Statements of Responsibilities and the Management Responsibilities Map.
• Assess product design, panel construction and distribution strategies to ensure they are not unduly influenced by internal group relationships or remuneration structures that could lead to poor customer outcomes or unfair value.

What changed

• - The FCA explicitly highlights vertically integrated insurance business models (combining underwriting, distribution, premium finance and related services within one group) as a source of heightened...
• Ownership and financing relationships, including private and non-transparent arrangements within groups or between firms, are now clearly framed as potential conflicts drivers that must be assessed...
• The FCA reiterates that having conflicts of interest is not inherently unacceptable, but firms must actively identify, manage and evidence those conflicts through effective governance, senior...
• The FCA states that disclosure on its own is not sufficient; firms remain obligated to properly manage conflicts, and cannot rely solely on informing customers to discharge their duties.
• Firms are expected to review how they design products and panels, structure remuneration, and communicate with customers to ensure that commercial relationships and incentives do not distort customer...