In its 19 May 2026 judgment, the High Court approved pro rata distribution to eligible investors of money recovered by the FCA from Argento Wealth Limited (AWL). Eligible investors must act by 1 August 2026. You can receive a share of the money recovered if you:Invested in the AWL Loan Scheme; orInvested in the EMB Scheme and if your investment was arranged by AWL or its sub-distributors.We will make payments to eligible investors, as defined in the court judgment, who provide their bank acco...
ESMA’s annual data report shows increased quality, wider use and digital progress 29 May 2026 Market data The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published today its annual report on the quality and use of regulatory data . It shows that improvements in data quality and data use reinforce each other in a virtuous cycle, supporting more effective supervision and market monitoring across the EU. This year’s edition reflects an e...
AI Analysis
ESMA’s latest annual report on the **quality and use of regulatory data** confirms a material step‑up in supervisory reliance on EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD and MMFR datasets, alongside new inclusion of Prospectus and DORA ICT‑incident reporting. For compliance teams this is a clear signal that data quality is now an enforcement‑relevant topic across a broader perimeter, and that ESMA is actively moving toward **streamlined, “report once” cross‑regime reporting** and an integrated funds reporting framework, which will reshape reporting architecture and controls over the next 1–3 years.
What Changed
- ESMA confirms measurable data quality improvements across EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD and MMFR regulatory datasets, indicating that regulators now consider these data sufficiently reliable for...
ESMA highlights extensive and growing supervisory use of regulatory data by ESMA and NCAs for investor protection, financial stability, orderly markets and market integrity, increasing the...
The scope of the annual data quality and use report is expanded to include Prospectus reporting obligations, bringing prospectus‑related data formally into ESMA’s cross‑regime data quality scrutiny.
The report scope is also expanded to include ICT‑related incident reporting under the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), signaling that operational resilience incident data will be monitored...
ESMA has launched a 2025 Call for Evidence on streamlining reporting across EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR, including options to remove duplications and apply a “report once” approach, which will likely lead...
Suggested Considerations
Map all existing regulatory reporting obligations across EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD, MMFR, Prospectus and DORA ICT‑incident reporting, and document the underlying data sources, systems and ownership for each regime.
Review and enhance data quality controls for EMIR, SFTR and MiFIR reporting, including validation rules, completeness checks, reconciliations, pairing and matching processes, and governance around Unique Transaction Identifiers and counterparty data.
Perform a gap analysis of Prospectus reporting and DORA ICT‑incident reporting processes against ESMA’s emerging cross‑regime data quality expectations and ensure they are covered in the firm’s enterprise data governance framework.
Establish or update a centralised regulatory data governance framework that explicitly covers cross‑regime consistency (for example, trade and position data alignment between EMIR, SFTR and MiFIR) and defines clear accountability at senior management level.
Engage with internal IT and reporting teams to identify where a future “report once” model could be supported technically, including harmonised reference data, common identifiers and golden‑source transaction and position records.
Key Dates
2025 (exact dates TBD)
– ESMA’s Call for Evidence on streamlining reporting across EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR is scheduled, with stakeholders expected to provide input on duplication removal and “report once” options
18 June 2026
– ESMA will host a webinar to present the main findings of the annual report on the quality and use of regulatory data
Compliance Impact
Regulatory data reported under EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD, MMFR, Prospectus rules and DORA is increasingly used for day‑to‑day supervision, thematic reviews and enforcement, making poor data quality a direct source of regulatory, reputational and potentially financial sanctions risk. As ESMA and NCAs deploy more automated, risk‑based data quality tools, firms with weak controls or inconsistent cross‑regime reporting will be more visible and more likely to face targeted supervisory action.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed the rescission of overly burdensome and costly rules that require companies to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports. The Commission’s…
AI Analysis
The SEC has issued a **proposal to rescind its climate‑related disclosure rules** that currently require registrants to provide specified climate information in registration statements and Form 10‑K‑type annual reports. If finalized, this would materially reduce prescriptive federal climate disclosure obligations, but compliance teams must carefully manage the transition because existing rules remain in force until any rescission is adopted and effective, and investors, proxy advisors, and other regimes (notably EU and state-level) will still expect robust climate disclosure.
What Changed
- The SEC proposes to rescind the 2024–2025 climate‑related disclosure rules that mandated detailed climate information in Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act annual reports,...
The proposal would remove line‑item requirements for climate‑related governance and oversight by the board and management that had been added to Regulation S‑K and related forms.
The proposal would eliminate prescriptive disclosure of climate‑related risks over specified time horizons (short, medium, long term) and their impacts on strategy, business model, and outlook that...
The proposal would rescind obligations to provide certain climate‑related financial metrics in audited financial statements, including disaggregation of climate‑related impacts in footnotes, thereby...
The proposal would eliminate any mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosures that were part of the climate rules, including Scopes that were required for large filers, returning GHG...
Suggested Considerations
Maintain full compliance with the existing SEC climate‑related disclosure rules in registration statements and annual reports until a final rescission (if any) becomes effective, and do not scale back disclosures based solely on the proposal.
Prepare internal briefing materials for the board, audit committee, and senior management explaining the proposed rescission, its potential implications, and the need to maintain current disclosures in the interim.
Coordinate with legal, finance, sustainability, and investor relations teams to develop a contingency disclosure strategy that anticipates both outcomes: (i) rescission is finalized and prescriptive line items disappear, or (ii) the rule is modified or retained following comments or litigation.
Review and update risk factor, MD&A, and business section drafting guidance to ensure that material climate‑related risks and opportunities continue to be addressed under general disclosure standards even if specialized climate items are removed.
Engage external counsel and proxy‑advisory or ESG stakeholders to assess how reduced prescriptive SEC climate requirements will interact with EU, UK and state‑level climate disclosure regimes, and align internal reporting processes to meet the most stringent applicable framework.
Key Dates
TBD (est. late 2026 or later)
– Potential SEC adoption of a final rule rescinding, modifying, or replacing the climate‑related disclosure rules, subject to consideration of comments and potential legal challenges
29 May 2026
– SEC issues press release and proposing release announcing the proposed rescission of the climate‑related disclosure rules and opens the public consultation
TBD (comment deadline, est. mid‑2026)DEADLINE
– Public comment period expected to close a set number of days (typically 30–60) after publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register; the precise date will be specified in the Federal Register notice
TBD (effective date, est. 30–60 days after Federal Register publication of final rule)DEADLINE
– Effective date of any final rescission; compliance with the existing climate rules would continue to be required for reporting periods and filings before this date
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance remains significant because, until any rescission is effective, issuers are expected to meet existing climate disclosure requirements and can face enforcement, private litigation, and restatement risk for material misstatements or omissions. Even after rescission, climate‑related statements will remain subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and to scrutiny from investors, proxy advisors, and other regulators.
The CFTC has issued a policy statement confirming that **perpetual contracts listed as futures on designated contract markets (DCMs) will be subject to case‑by‑case review under CFTC Regulation 40.3**, rather than being treated as a standard product class. The trigger is a contemporaneous CFTC order allowing a DCM to list a bitcoin spot‑referencing perpetual contract as a futures contract, while clarifying that perpetuals on other asset classes are not automatically covered and must be submitted for prior Commission review.
What Changed
- The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...
Suggested Considerations
DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.
Key Dates
29 May 2026
– CFTC issues the policy statement on listing of perpetual contracts and an order permitting a DCM to list a perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of bitcoin
TBD (upon Federal Register publication)
– Policy statement is published in the Federal Register; from that point, DCMs and market participants can treat it as the Commission’s formal articulation of expectations for perpetual contract listings
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the Commission’s articulated expectation to use Regulation 40.3 review for perpetual contracts outside the scope of the bitcoin perpetual order could lead to CFTC objections to product listings, enforcement actions, or mandated contract modifications or delistings. The impact is medium‑to‑high for DCMs and intermediaries involved in perpetual products, given the direct effect on product strategy, time‑to‑market, and potential litigation or supervisory risk if perpetuals are listed or operated inconsistently with the policy statement.
Warning: Unauthorised Banking Business / Unauthorised Payment Services Unauthorised Firm Name Fire Financial Services Limited (CLONE) Website Addresses used • www.financeportfolio.net • www.fire.com.de • www.centralbank.ie.de • www.revenue.ie.de • www.department-of-finance.ie.de Email address used • accounts@compliance-fire.com • fire-support@fire.com.de • fire.support@fire.com.de • support@fire.com.de • fire-eu@fire.com.de • fire@fire.com.de • info@fire.com.de • fireservices@fire.com.de Tele...
AI Analysis
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 about a **clone fraud** entity using the name **Fire Financial Services Limited (CLONE)** and multiple deceptive websites, emails, and phone numbers to conduct unauthorised banking business, payment services, and inheritance scams in Ireland. This notice reinforces existing obligations on regulated firms to monitor and respond to misuse of their identity, enhance scam‑prevention controls, and ensure staff and customers can distinguish between genuine and clone communications.
What Changed
- CBI has formally identified Fire Financial Services Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised entity that is not authorised to provide banking business or payment services in Ireland and is misusing the...
CBI has published specific fraud indicators associated with this clone, including website domains (e.g.
The warning explicitly states that the clone firm appears to be running an inheritance scam, including the use of fake documentation allegedly from third parties, which should be treated as a red...
CBI reiterates that there is no connection between the legitimate authorised Fire Financial Services Limited (C58301) and this fraudulent entity, thereby clarifying the status of the genuine firm and...
The firm’s name is formally published on CBI’s list of unauthorised firms under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, increasing regulatory expectation that firms...
Suggested Considerations
Review and update internal fraud‑risk and financial crime risk assessments to explicitly cover clone‑firm risks, including inheritance scams and impersonation of authorised entities.
Integrate the specific domains, email addresses, and phone numbers listed in the CBI notice into fraud‑monitoring tools, allow‑/block‑lists, and case‑management systems, and ensure they are treated as high‑risk indicators.
Ensure front‑line, call‑centre, and relationship‑management staff receive targeted training and briefing on this specific clone case and on common clone‑firm red flags, including requests related to inheritance payments and use of unofficial domains.
Enhance onboarding and counterparty due diligence procedures to include systematic checks against the CBI “unauthorised firms” list and the CBI public registers, especially where firms claim Irish regulation or use names similar to existing authorised firms.
Update third‑party and introducer due diligence controls to verify that any firm referring business or presenting as an intermediary is properly authorised and not listed as unauthorised under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.
Key Dates
29 May 2026
- CBI issues and publishes the warning notice identifying Fire Financial Services Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised firm and clone of the legitimate Fire Financial Services Limited (C58301), and lists it under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance primarily manifests through failures in fraud‑risk management and consumer‑protection controls, potentially leading to regulatory scrutiny, enforcement action, and serious reputational damage if customers suffer losses via clone firms that the institution did not adequately warn about or guard against. Failure to identify and avoid dealings with unauthorised entities can also raise questions about a firm’s governance, due diligence, and adherence to CBI expectations under the Central Bank’s supervisory and enforcement framework.
The SFC’s Guidance Note clarifies issuer obligations for the upcoming USM regime and signals that preparation work must start immediately, especially amendments to articles or other terms of issue. For compliance teams, the core risk is missing the transition window: issuers must be ready for a paperless market structure on launch, and key jurisdiction issuers face a hard deadline to complete constitutional amendments by the later of the first anniversary of USM launch or their first AGM after launch.
What Changed
- The USM regime is targeted to launch on 16 November 2026, and issuers must prepare for securities to be held and transferred without paper certificates from that point onward.
Issuers will need to review and amend their terms of issue, including articles of association or equivalent constitutional documents, so they are consistent with USM requirements.
The SFC’s guidance provides key areas of focus and sample provisions to help issuers amend their constitutional documents for paperless securities issuance and transfer.
Issuers will need to complete amendments by 16 November 2027 or by the date of their first annual general meeting after USM launch, whichever is later.
Upon implementation of USM, issuers must have an approved securities registrar at all times.
Suggested Considerations
Issuers must review their articles of association, bylaws, and terms of issue immediately to identify provisions that conflict with uncertificated issuance, electronic transfer, or register-based title evidence.
Issuers must begin the constitutional amendment process now so shareholder approvals, board resolutions, and any jurisdiction-specific filings can be completed before the applicable deadline.
Issuers must confirm their ability to appoint and maintain an approved securities registrar at all times once USM is implemented.
Issuers must assess their registrar, transfer, and corporate action workflows to ensure they can operate in a paperless environment from launch.
Issuers must coordinate with legal advisers and share registrars to map the transition timetable and identify any issues that could delay implementation.
Key Dates
06 May 2026
- A commencement notice to bring the USM-related legislation into effect was tabled before the Legislative Council for negative vetting
16 November 2026DEADLINE
- The USM regime is targeted for launch, and issuers must be operationally ready for uncertificated securities market participation
16 November 2027DEADLINE
- Deadline by which issuers must complete amendments to their terms of issue, unless their first annual general meeting after USM launch occurs later
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance is likely to be significant because USM readiness is tied to the issuer’s ability to issue, evidence, and transfer securities lawfully in the new market structure, and failure to comply could disrupt listing status, corporate actions, and investor dealings. The requirement to maintain an approved securities registrar continuously makes this a core operating-control issue, not just a one-time documentation update.
The CFTC has intervened in federal court in Rhode Island to block the state from enforcing its gambling laws against a CFTC‑registered designated contract market (DCM) offering prediction/event contracts. This action is a direct assertion of the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) over event contracts and CFTC‑registered prediction markets, with significant implications for how exchanges, intermediaries, and market participants manage state law risk and venue selection.
What Changed
- The CFTC has formally sought to intervene in a U.S. District Court case in Rhode Island to halt the state’s attempt to apply state gambling laws and seek civil penalties against a CFTC‑registered...
The Commission has publicly reaffirmed that event contracts traded on CFTC‑registered exchanges are “commodity derivatives” squarely within the CFTC’s regulatory remit under the Commodity Exchange...
The CFTC is explicitly characterizing its authority over CFTC‑registered prediction markets as “exclusive jurisdiction,” signaling that state gambling regulators and attorneys general should not...
The Rhode Island dispute is identified as part of a broader pattern of state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, following similar or related litigation in Arizona, Connecticut,...
The enforcement posture indicates that CFTC‑registered contract markets facing state actions can expect active CFTC litigation support when states attempt to apply gambling or gaming statutes to...
Suggested Considerations
Review current and planned event or prediction‑market contracts to confirm that they are structured, documented, and marketed as commodity derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than as gaming or wagering products.
Update internal legal and compliance memoranda on federal preemption and CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” to reflect the CFTC’s latest public position and the ongoing Rhode Island and related state cases.
Map state‑law exposure for event contracts by conducting a jurisdictional sweep of gambling, gaming, bucket‑shop, and “games of chance” statutes for key states where customers or operations are located, with particular focus on Rhode Island, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota.
Enhance product‑approval and new‑business committees’ procedures so that, before launching event contracts, they explicitly document CEA coverage, CFTC oversight, and a preemption analysis versus relevant state gambling laws.
For CFTC‑registered contract markets, establish and maintain a litigation and regulatory‑strategy playbook for responding to state attorney‑general investigations or enforcement demands, including criteria for when to seek CFTC support or intervention.
Key Dates
Late May 2026
– A CFTC‑registered designated contract market files a federal complaint after being threatened with impending state enforcement under Rhode Island gambling laws
Friday, Late May 2026
– Rhode Island files a parallel state‑court complaint seeking significant civil penalties and demanding that prediction markets “stand down” and “disgorge their profits.”
28 May 2026
– The CFTC files a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block state enforcement and reiterate its claim of exclusive jurisdiction over CFTC‑registered prediction markets
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with CEA and CFTC requirements, or misalignment with the CFTC’s asserted exclusive jurisdiction, could expose firms to overlapping enforcement from both federal and state authorities, including significant civil penalties, injunctive relief, forced cessation of business, and profit disgorgement. Firms failing to anticipate and manage the federal–state conflict risk may also face abrupt business interruption, litigation costs, and reputational damage in the rapidly evolving prediction‑market space.
Financial firms have made progress in preventing sanctions breaches – with £37bn worth of assets frozen in the UK as of last year – but gaps remain, warns the FCA. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) and the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI) implement financial and trade sanctions. The FCA supports them through its role supervising firms within the financial services sector. This includes checking they have adequate sanctions systems and controls.Since Februa...
On 22 May 2026, Sukate & Bezeboh Ltd (SB Remit) entered administration. Charles Turner and Frank Ofonagoro were appointed as joint administrators. SB Remit is a small payment institution authorised by the FCA to provide payment services.On 13 May 2026, SB Remit agreed to a voluntary undertaking, which restricted the activities it could undertake. These measures included restrictions preventing the firm from accepting new customer funds.On 22 May 2026, Charles Turner and Frank Ofonagoro of Opu...
New Q&As available 28 May 2026 Digital Finance and Innovation Market Abuse Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU's securities markets regulator, has published the following question and answer: EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) Defined ranking system (2853) Transitional provisions (2854) ESG rating providers established after date of entry into force (2855) Material changes to registration information (2856) Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Regulation A...
AI Analysis
ESMA has released new Q&As clarifying several operational aspects of the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) delegated audit requirements, and an exemption from MiCA white paper obligations for certain crypto-asset offerings. These Q&As materially affect how ESG rating providers structure their methodologies and registrations, how firms plan and evidence MAR compliance audits, and when MiCA white papers are required, and therefore should immediately be integrated into internal compliance frameworks.
What Changed
- ESMA clarifies what constitutes a “defined ranking system” under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), including when rating scales, score bands or league tables will be regarded as a ranking...
ESMA sets out transitional provisions for existing ESG rating providers active before ESGRR application, detailing conditions and timelines under which they may continue operating while completing...
ESMA explains how ESG rating providers established after the ESGRR date of entry into force must comply, including the need to obtain authorisation/registration before commencing activity in the EU...
ESMA defines what qualifies as “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers under ESGRR, indicating the types of changes (e.g.
Under MAR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957, ESMA clarifies expectations regarding the annually conducted audit of market soundings arrangements, including scope, independence of the...
Suggested Considerations
Map all existing and planned ESG rating products against ESMA’s clarified concept of a “defined ranking system” and update methodologies, scales, and disclosures to ensure they meet ESGRR and Q&A expectations.
For ESG rating providers operating before 02 July 2026, develop and execute a documented transitional compliance plan that aligns governance, methodologies, data controls and transparency with ESGRR, ensuring timely notification to ESMA within one month from 02 July 2026.
For entities intending to launch ESG rating activities after ESGRR entry into force, prepare and submit complete authorisation or registration files to ESMA before commencing rating activity, incorporating the Q&A guidance on initial registration requirements.
Establish or enhance a formal process to identify, assess and record “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers, and implement controls to ensure ESMA is notified within required timelines before or immediately after such changes, as specified in the Q&A.
Review and update MAR compliance frameworks, with particular focus on market soundings procedures, to incorporate ESMA’s expectations on the scope, independence, and documentation of the annually conducted audit required under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957.
Key Dates
03 January 2025
– ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) enters into force, starting the formal legislative timeline and triggering preparatory obligations for future ESG rating providers
02 July 2026
– ESGRR applies and the main substantive requirements become effective; from this date entities have one month to notify ESMA of their intention to apply for authorisation or registration as ESG rating providers
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with ESGRR, MAR and MiCA as interpreted in ESMA’s Q&As may lead to authorisation refusals or withdrawals, administrative fines, product restrictions, and heightened supervisory scrutiny. Given the enforcement nature of ESG ratings supervision and MAR/MiCA regimes, firms face significant conduct, reputational and business model risks if they fail to align promptly with this guidance.
PS15/26 sets out the PRA’s final Phase 1 reforms to **Pillar 2A capital methodologies and reporting**, aligned with the UK’s Basel 3.1 implementation and intended to modernise how risks beyond Pillar 1 are captured. It introduces revised approaches and expectations across credit, operational, pension obligation, market and counterparty credit risk, plus substantial updates to ICAAP/SREP guidance and Pillar 2 reporting for both mainstream firms and SDDTs.
What Changed
- The PRA finalises amendments to the Reporting Pillar 2 Part of the PRA Rulebook, including updated Pillar 2 data items (FSA072–FSA076 and FSA081) and an updated Pillar 2 reporting schedule, with...
The PRA issues an updated Statement of Policy (SoP) 5/15 – The PRA’s methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital, providing revised methodologies across credit, operational, pension obligation, market...
The PRA issues an updated SoP 5/25 – The PRA’s methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs), tailoring Pillar 2A approaches and expectations for SDDTs.
The PRA updates Supervisory Statement (SS) 31/15 – ICAAP and SREP, clarifying expectations on how firms should assess, document and justify Pillar 2A capital in ICAAPs, including how to reflect...
The PRA updates SS 4/25 – ICAAP and SREP for SDDTs, setting proportionate ICAAP expectations and aligning SDDT guidance with the revised Pillar 2A framework.
Suggested Considerations
Map your firm’s current Pillar 2A capital framework against the updated SoP 5/15 and, where applicable, SoP 5/25 to identify methodology changes across credit, operational, pension, market and counterparty credit risk.
Update ICAAP methodologies, models and documentation to reflect revised PRA expectations, including new or enhanced use of credit risk and operational risk scenarios and any updated calibration standards.
Review and, where necessary, redesign ICAAP governance (board oversight, senior management ownership, model risk and validation frameworks) to ensure that new scenario‑driven and systematic Pillar 2A methodologies are subject to appropriate challenge and approval.
For firms with material sovereign, central bank, regional government or unconditionally cancellable retail exposures, implement the new systematic Pillar 2A credit risk methodologies and assess the impact on capital requirements and risk‑weighted exposure allocation.
For firms with significant operational risk, enhance scenario analysis frameworks to capture low‑frequency, high‑severity loss events at the PRA’s expected soundness level, and embed these outputs into ICAAP capital quantification.
Key Dates
22 May 2025
– PRA published CP12/25 launching Phase 1 of the Pillar 2A review and consulting on revised methodologies and reporting
05 September 2025
– Consultation period for CP12/25 closed, with industry feedback informing PS15/26
02 March 2026
– Changes relating to pension obligation risk and market/counterparty credit risk methodologies and associated reporting expectations take effect
01 January 2027
– Basel 3.1 standards are implemented in the UK and the retirement of the refined Pillar 2A methodology takes effect; Phase 1 Pillar 2A changes for credit and operational risk are aligned to this Basel 3.1 implementation date
2027 (TBD)
– PRA plans to publish a further consultation paper (Phase 2) on an in‑depth review of individual Pillar 2A methodologies
Compliance Impact
The impact is high: the reforms change how Pillar 2A capital is calculated, justified and reported, with direct consequences for total capital requirements, ICAAP content and supervisory dialogue. Failure to implement the new methodologies and reporting expectations on time can lead to higher capital add‑ons, adverse SREP outcomes, supervisory remediation programmes and potential restrictions on distributions or business growth.
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Investor Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting at the SEC Headquarters in Washington D.C. on June 4 at 10 a.m. ET to discuss private markets, passive index funds, and recommendations regarding fund…
Firms that approve financial promotions should be doing more to protect consumers, an FCA review has found. The FCA found that the strongest firms were applying the Consumer Duty from the start of their processes. They were able to make sure that every promotion approved was accurate, clear and reached the right audience.However, the FCA also found that some firms approved adverts with unsubstantiated claims or allowed retail investors to see promotions intended for professional clients. In s...
Good morning and welcome to the launch of our first Financial Stability Review of 2026 . During 2026, risks facing the domestic financial system from the global environment have intensified. In 2025, the origin of external risks related primarily to swings in global trade policy. This year, the origin relates to the pricing, and the sustainability of global energy supplies, following the start of the war in the Middle East. This shock, coming less than a year after the previous trade shock, a...
Risks to Ireland's financial system from the global environment have intensified, Central Bank of Ireland has said today. The Financial Stability Review , published today, assesses the risks to and resilience of the Irish financial system. A persistent global energy supply shock triggered by the conflict in the Middle East, the risk of a correction in financial markets, potentially amplified by financial vulnerabilities in parts of the global non-bank sector, and increasing cyber risks could ...
We’re inviting applications from senior practitioners at smaller regulated firms in the general insurance and consumer credit sectors to join the panel. The Smaller Business Practitioner Panel provides independent advice and challenge from the perspective of smaller firms, helping to shape our work at a time of significant change in UK financial services regulation.Its key remit is to provide input to the FCA from the industry to help us meet our strategic and operational objectives from a sm...
PRA Policy Statement PS14/26 finalises the restatement of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary, with consequential amendments across other Rulebook Parts and updates to SS15/13 on groups. For compliance teams, the key issue is transition planning: the remaining CRR definitions are being moved out of the CRR framework, and firms must ensure their policies, capital documentation, systems, and references align with the PRA Rulebook versions before the repeal of CRR Articles 4–5 takes effect on 1 January 2027.
What Changed
- The PRA has finalised new and restated PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions that replace the CRR definitions previously found in Articles 4, 4A, 4B and 5 for PRA Rulebook purposes.
The PRA has made consequential amendments across other Parts of the PRA Rulebook to align internal cross-references and terminology with the new glossary structure.
The PRA has updated Supervisory Statement SS15/13 – Groups to reflect the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook framework.
The PRA has stated that the vast majority of definitions are restated without substantive policy change, but some definitions were clarified for drafting consistency and readability.
HM Treasury has set the legislative timetable so that the relevant CRR Articles 4–5 will be revoked from 1 January 2027, while the statutory restatement of selected definitions was made in April 2026.
Suggested Considerations
Review all internal policies, manuals, and regulatory interpretation documents that currently cite CRR Articles 4, 4A, 4B, or 5 and replace those references with the corresponding PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions.
Update capital adequacy, prudential reporting, and risk management systems to use the new PRA Rulebook terminology where definitions have moved from the CRR text.
Reconcile group supervision materials, governance papers, and consolidation analyses against the revised SS15/13 wording to ensure group structures are assessed using the updated definitions.
Map every affected business line and legal entity to determine which Rulebook Parts and counterparties rely on the transferred CRR definitions.
Test template agreements, customer disclosures, and internal controls for terminology drift where contractual drafting depends on CRR-defined concepts.
Key Dates
July 2025
- HM Treasury published its Policy Update on applying the FSMA model of regulation to the UK CRR and proposed revoking the remaining CRR provisions while restating only necessary definitions
July 2025
- PRA published CP19/25 proposing the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary and consequential amendments across the Rulebook
January 2026
- PRA published earlier final policy work on CRR restatement and related implementation measures, indicating the wider restatement programme was already underway
February 2026
- HM Treasury published a policy update confirming it would proceed largely as consulted on, with a change to the statutory definition of “securitisation” for consistency with PRA Basel 3.1 rules
February 2026
- The commencement statutory instrument revoking CRR Articles 4–5 was made, with effect from 1 January 2027
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is moderate to high because this is a definitional restatement rather than a wholesale policy rewrite, but it affects the legal basis of many prudential references and could create misstatement risk if firms continue to rely on revoked CRR text after 1 January 2027. Non-compliance may lead to inaccurate capital, governance, or perimeter analysis, and could trigger supervisory findings where firms have not updated systems, documentation, or controls to the new Rulebook structure.
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) diende in 2020 een tuchtklacht in tegen een externe accountant van een accountantsorganisatie met een reguliere vergunning, vanwege het in het maatschappelijk verkeer brengen van twee controleverklaringen waarop niet vertrouwd kon worden. Deze klacht werd eerder al grotendeels gegrond verklaard door de Accountantskamer. Dat blijft overeind. Het hoger beroep dat de accountant vervolgens instelde bij het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (CBb) is n...
ESMA consults on revised guidelines to support smoother allocations and confirmations under T+1 26 May 2026 Post Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has launched a consultation on the updated guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols. This review is part of ESMA’s work to support market participants in preparing for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle. The updates are designed to make post ...
AI Analysis
ESMA has launched a consultation on **revised ESMA Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations and confirmations**, aligning them with the forthcoming CSDR Settlement Discipline RTS amendments and the EU’s move to **T+1 settlement by 11 October 2027**. The draft guidelines harden expectations around **mandatory electronic, standardised, machine‑readable communication** for post‑trade processes and remove reliance on manual or non‑machine‑readable methods, significantly tightening operational requirements for EU trading, post‑trade and operations functions.
What Changed
- ESMA proposes revised Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations and confirmations under CSDR Settlement Discipline, specifically to support the transition to a...
The guidelines will mandate the use of electronic, standardised communication channels for post‑trade allocations and confirmations, moving away from mixed paper / manual practice to fully electronic...
Firms will be required to use international messaging standards (e.g. ISO‑based protocols) for post‑trade communication, to ensure interoperability and faster straight‑through processing across EU...
The guidelines remove references to non‑electronic and non‑machine‑readable methods, including oral allocations and confirmations, except where there is a temporary technical disruption that prevents...
The revisions are explicitly aligned with ESMA’s Final Report on Amendments to the CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline, which introduce same‑day timing for allocations and machine‑readable formats for...
Suggested Considerations
Map all current allocation and confirmation workflows and identify any use of non‑electronic, non‑standardised or non‑machine‑readable communication (including email attachments, faxes, PDFs, and oral instructions).
Develop and execute a remediation plan to replace manual or oral allocation and confirmation processes with fully electronic, machine‑readable workflows using recognised international messaging standards.
Review and update front‑to‑back trade processing systems (OMS, EMS, middle‑office, back‑office, matching engines) to ensure they can generate, receive and process standardised electronic allocation and confirmation messages within same‑day T+1‑compatible timelines.
Engage with CSDs, custodians, brokers, counterparties and third‑party vendors to confirm their roadmap and readiness for the mandated electronic standards and to align implementation timelines to the 7 December 2026 application date.
Update contractual documentation with clients and counterparties (including terms of business and service level agreements) to incorporate obligations for electronic, standardised, machine‑readable allocations and confirmations and to remove reliance on manual methods except as contingency.
Key Dates
07 July 2026DEADLINE
– Deadline stated by ESMA for stakeholders to submit consultation feedback on the revised guidelines
October 2026
– ESMA expects to publish its final report, including updated and finalised guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols
07 December 2026
– Expected application date of the revised ESMA Guidelines on allocations and confirmations, aligned with the anticipated application of the amended CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline requirements for allocations and confirmations
11 October 2027DEADLINE
– EU transition date to a T+1 settlement cycle, when trades in in‑scope instruments must settle one business day after the trade date and firms must fully operate under the new T+1‑aligned post‑trade framework
Compliance Impact
The change is high impact for operational and conduct compliance: failure to implement mandatory electronic, standardised post‑trade communication and to meet compressed T+1 timelines will directly increase settlement fails, trigger CSDR Settlement Discipline measures and may expose firms to supervisory findings, sanctions and client detriment. Given the hard deadlines and dependency on technology and counterparties, non‑compliance risks crystallising as both regulatory breaches and material operational risk.
Waarover maken pensioenspecialisten zich concreet druk in de pensioentransitie? En welke tip hebben ze voor de AFM? In deze interviewserie stellen we drie vaste vragen aan een pensioenprominent. Vandaag Elske Heringa, onder andere vicevoorzitter van Bedrijfstakpensioenfonds Levensmiddelen: De overgang naar het nieuwe stelsel is een mooi moment om te kijken naar meer diversiteit en inclusie in pensioenfondsbesturen.’
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
AI Analysis
The Bank of England has opened a new BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window (02–12 June 2026) to allow statistical reporting firms and software houses to test submissions under the Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 ahead of go‑live for end‑May 2026 data due from mid‑June 2026. This matters for compliance teams because firms must ensure their reporting systems can generate valid XBRL submissions without the Bank’s Statistical Utility Tool, segregate test and live data correctly, and meet reporting deadlines using the updated taxonomy and BEEDS processes.
What Changed
- The Bank of England has opened a BEEDS UAT environment specifically for testing statistical submissions under Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL, distinct from the BEEDS LIVE production environment.
A dedicated UAT window is set from 02 June to 12 June 2026, during which the UAT environment will run in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns.
Statistical reporting firms are automatically enabled for BEEDS UAT using their existing BEEDS LIVE firm and user information and do not need to request UAT access.
Software houses that wish to use this UAT window must request access by emailing the BEEDS queries mailbox by a stated cut‑off date (25 May 2026).
All principal and additional user details for firms will be mirrored from the BEEDS LIVE environment into BEEDS UAT, with UAT‑specific temporary passwords issued from the designated BEEDS UAT email...
Suggested Considerations
Identify all Bank of England statistical returns in scope of Taxonomy v1.3.1 and confirm that internal reporting calendars and responsibilities reflect the end‑May 2026 effective period and mid‑June 2026 submission deadlines.
Ensure that all in‑scope statistical reporting firms’ BEEDS LIVE user and firm information are accurate and up to date, so that automatic mirroring into the BEEDS UAT environment creates correct and controlled user profiles.
Instruct software houses and third‑party vendors supporting Bank of England statistical reporting to request BEEDS UAT access by emailing the BEEDS queries mailbox no later than 25 May 2026 if they intend to participate in this UAT window.
Coordinate with internal IT and vendors to schedule, prepare, and execute test submissions in BEEDS UAT between 02 June and 12 June 2026, covering all relevant entry points and reporting scenarios under Taxonomy v1.3.1.
Implement or validate an alternative XBRL generation solution to replace the withdrawn Bank of England Statistical Utility Tool, and complete end‑to‑end testing (source data to BEEDS receipt) ahead of the mid‑June 2026 live submission deadline.
Key Dates
End May 2026
– Reference date of the first LIVE reporting period to which Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 applies (end‑May 2026 data)
25 May 2026
– Last date for software houses to email the BEEDS queries mailbox to request access to the BEEDS UAT environment for this specific UAT window
Mid June 2026DEADLINE
– Due date window for LIVE submissions of end‑May 2026 statistical data under Taxonomy v1.3.1 via BEEDS LIVE
02 June 2026
– Opening of BEEDS UAT environment for the June testing window under Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL
12 June 2026
– Closing of BEEDS UAT environment for the June testing window
Compliance Impact
The immediate compliance risk is operational and reporting‑accuracy related: failure to implement and test Taxonomy v1.3.1 and alternative XBRL tooling increases the likelihood of rejected filings, late submissions, or mis‑reported statistical data. Persistent defects or missed deadlines may trigger supervisory attention, remediation expectations, and potential prudential concerns about data quality and governance over regulatory reporting.
Het partnerpensioen is in het nieuwe stelsel standaard op risicobasis geregeld. Bij slechts een klein gedeelte van de actieve deelnemers die in 2024 overgingen naar het nieuwe stelsel, blijkt de dekking van het partnerpensioen dicht bij het maximum van 50 procent van het pensioengevend salaris, blijkt uit ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’. Goed nieuws is dat het aandeel deelnemers met partnerpensioendekking in premieregelingen toeneemt.
Van de eerste groep actieve deelnemers die overging naar het nieuwe pensioenstelsel (allemaal bij verzekeraars en ppi’s) blijkt een substantieel deel beperkt pensioen op te bouwen. Dat is een van de bevindingen in ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’, dat we vorige week publiceerden.
Voor gepensioneerden van wie het pensioenfonds invaart in de Flexibele Premieregeling (FPR) kan de keuze voor een variabele of vaste uitkering ingewikkeld zijn. En eventueel zelf een aanbieder zoeken voor een vaste uitkering eveneens. Het is belangrijk dat hun pensioenuitvoerder hen goed begeleidt bij de keuze voor vast of variabel.
We’re pleased to announce that our Annual Public Meeting (APM) will be held in Edinburgh for the first time on 6 October 2026, marking an important milestone for us a UK-wide regulator. The announcement coincides with a visit to Edinburgh on 26 May by our chair Ashley Alder, who was there to open a new office space, demonstrating our commitment to growing our presence in Scotland, and expanding our workforce of more than 350 colleagues.Edinburgh continues to strengthen its position in global ...
The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) have concluded their consultation on **new virtual asset (VA) advisory and management regimes**, confirming that these will be legislated under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (AMLO, Cap. 615) and aligned with existing Type 4 and Type 9 regimes under the Securities and Futures Ordinance.
This materially expands Hong Kong’s VA perimeter: firms providing VA investment advice or VA portfolio management will be brought into a statutory licensing and AML/CTF framework comparable to traditional securities and asset management, with an expected bill to be introduced into LegCo in 2026.
What Changed
- The Hong Kong Government and SFC have confirmed that dedicated regulatory regimes for VA advisory services and VA management services will be created under the Anti-Money Laundering and...
The regulatory scope and standards of the VA advisory regime will be aligned with Type 4 “advising on securities” regulated activity under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, applying a “same...
The regulatory scope and standards of the VA management regime will be aligned with Type 9 “asset management” regulated activity under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, implying broadly...
The consultation received broad market support across 51 responding stakeholders, and the SFC has treated this as a mandate to proceed to finalisation of the detailed legislative proposals and...
The new VA advisory and management regimes will sit alongside existing and proposed VA regimes for: VA trading platforms, stablecoin issuers, VA dealing and VA custody, forming an end-to-end...
Suggested Considerations
Conduct a gap analysis comparing current or planned virtual asset advisory and management activities against Type 4 and Type 9 requirements under the Securities and Futures Ordinance to identify where equivalent capabilities, controls and governance will be required under the new VA regimes.
Map all group entities and business lines that provide VA-related advice, research, recommendations or portfolio management to clients in or from Hong Kong, and determine which entities will need licensing or authorisation under the forthcoming AMLO-based regimes.
Initiate early engagement with the SFC (e.g. via pre-application meetings or WINGS enquiries) to clarify how existing licences, business models and cross-border arrangements will be treated under the new VA advisory and management regimes.
Review and, where necessary, enhance AML/CTF frameworks, including customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening and ongoing review procedures, to ensure they are robust enough for VA-specific risks anticipated under AMLO-based regulation.
Update internal policies and procedures on suitability, product due diligence, risk disclosure, conflicts of interest and best execution to explicitly cover VA advisory and VA management services in line with standards applied to traditional securities and funds.
Key Dates
19 February 2025
- SFC issues its ASPIRe roadmap, with “Access” identified as one of five pillars and VA regulatory expansion flagged as a strategic priority
27 June 2025
- Consultation papers published on legislative proposals to regulate VA dealing and VA custodian service providers, setting the broader perimeter for VA intermediaries
24 December 2025
- Consultation conclusions issued on legislative proposals to regulate VA dealing and VA custodian service providers, confirming direction for those regimes
24 December 2025
- FSTB and SFC launch further consultation on VA advisory and VA management regimes, which has now concluded
2026 (TBD – bill introduction)
- FSTB and SFC aim to introduce a bill into the Legislative Council to establish VA advisory and VA management regimes under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615)
Compliance Impact
The impact is high: VA advisory and management activities that were previously in grey or partially covered areas will become explicitly regulated under AMLO, with enforcement, licensing and AML/CTF expectations aligned to traditional financial services.
The escalation of the Middle East conflict leaves the global economy in a clearly worse state than previously expected. Higher inflation expectations, lower growth and heightened uncertainty are also affecting the financial sector, according to the annual Financial Stability Report from the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). Financial market volatility has increased, with prices being driven more by short-term sentiment. This means greater valuation, liquidity and operational ri...
amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 concerning restrictive measures in view of Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region as well as Iran’s actions undermining freedom of navigation in the Middle East
1 We are at the early stages of a potential technological rewiring of finance. Fast-forward ten or twenty years, and it seems likely that the use of shared, programmable ledgers – and the tokenisation of financial assets – will have become embedded across the financial system. Today, we stand at a juncture. The question is less whether the technology will transform finance. Rather, it is how we collectively shape this ongoing transition, so that the potential of tokenised finance is realised,...
AI Analysis
The Deputy Governor’s speech sets out the Central Bank of Ireland’s (CBI) emerging regulatory stance on tokenised finance and distributed ledger technology (DLT), framing it as a structural transition rather than a niche innovation. While it does not introduce new binding rules, it clearly signals supervisory expectations, impending policy development (including follow‑up to the March 2026 Discussion Paper on tokenisation and DLT), and the need for regulated firms to integrate tokenisation risks, governance and operational resilience into existing regulatory frameworks.
What Changed
- The CBI formally recognises tokenisation and shared, programmable ledgers as a likely core infrastructure of the future financial system and signals that regulation will evolve to treat tokenised...
The speech confirms that CBI’s regulatory approach will be “technology‑neutral but not technology‑blind”, indicating that existing EU and Irish rules (e.g.
The CBI emphasises the need to keep central bank money at the core of tokenised finance, aligning its stance with Eurosystem work on wholesale and retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) and...
The speech reinforces that tokenised instruments representing traditional financial assets (securities, deposits, fund units) will generally be treated as regulated financial instruments, triggering...
The CBI highlights operational resilience, cyber risk, interoperability and smart‑contract governance as critical supervisory focus areas for tokenised finance infrastructure and platforms.
Suggested Considerations
Map all current and planned tokenisation and DLT initiatives (including pilots and proofs of concept) across the group and identify which EU and Irish regulatory regimes they fall under (MiFID II, UCITS, AIFMD, CRR/CRD, PSD2/PSR, Solvency II, MiCA, DORA, etc.).
Perform a regulatory gap analysis to confirm that tokenised products and services are fully captured within existing licensing permissions and assess whether any variation of permission, new authorisation, or recognition as a market infrastructure is required.
Review and update governance arrangements so that boards and senior management explicitly oversee tokenisation strategies, risk appetite, and the use of DLT, including ensuring clear allocation of responsibilities under the firm’s senior manager or fitness and probity framework.
Integrate tokenisation‑specific risks into the firm’s risk management framework, covering legal enforceability of tokens, smart‑contract risk, cyber and operational resilience, data integrity, interoperability, concentration risk in technology providers, and settlement and counterparty risk.
Review outsourcing and third‑party risk management frameworks to ensure that DLT platform providers, smart‑contract developers, node operators and custodians are treated as critical or important outsourced service providers where appropriate, with robust contractual, oversight and exit provisions.
Key Dates
05 March 2026
- CBI publishes its Discussion Paper on tokenisation and distributed ledger technology in financial services, initiating a structured consultation on tokenised markets, funds, money and payments
26 May 2026
- Deputy Governor speech sets out the CBI’s strategic approach to tokenised finance, confirming that consultation feedback will inform subsequent policy, supervisory expectations and potential rule changes
05 June 2026
- Closing date for submissions to the CBI Discussion Paper on tokenisation and DLT, after which CBI will prepare a feedback statement and refine its policy stance
TBD (post‑June 2026)
- CBI feedback statement on the tokenisation Discussion Paper expected, likely followed by more granular guidance and potential adjustments to supervisory and authorisation processes for tokenised activities
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance will not immediately trigger new standalone tokenisation fines, but CBI is likely to use existing conduct, prudential, governance and operational resilience powers to challenge poorly controlled tokenised activities and may restrict or prohibit projects that do not meet its expectations. Firms that treat tokenised finance as “outside the regulatory perimeter” or fail to integrate it into existing compliance frameworks risk supervisory intervention, authorisation issues, enforcement action and reputational damage.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) has sufficient grounds to suspect that BOSS.BSS L.L.C. based in Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo, is offering securities in the form of shares of Hartmann & Benz Inc to the public in Germany without the required prospectus. There are no indications that the conditions for exemption from the prospectus requirement are met.
This April 2026 report contains an update of the latest consumer price developments in Singapore, prepared by MAS and the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
At the UBS Investment Conference, Singapore Wealth Edition, Mr Chia Der Jiun, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, share his perspectives on navigating the latest macro-economic outlook amid an evolving geopolitical landscape.
Sanctions & settlements Journalists The AMF Enforcement Committee fines two individuals for insider dealing breaches
AI Analysis
The AMF Enforcement Committee has sanctioned two individuals, Ytane Mamou and Elie Houri, a total of €50,000 for insider dealing related to a takeover of a listed company, based on trading in July 2021. The decision confirms and illustrates how the AMF infers possession and use of inside information from circumstantial indicators (transmission channels, atypical trading, timing, and weak explanations), which has direct implications for how firms design surveillance, control personal account dealing, and train staff and related persons.
What Changed
- The decision reiterates and operationalises the definition of “inside information” under the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014), confirming that information relating to a...
The Enforcement Committee shows that it will infer possession and use of inside information from a combination of factors (plausible transmission channels, atypical trading patterns, timing around...
The decision confirms that the use of inside information through trading on own account and on the account of closely related persons (spouse, parent) will be treated as separate instances of misuse...
The Committee explicitly treats recommendations to invest made on the basis of inside information as a distinct form of insider dealing, exposing the recommender to sanctions even if they do not...
The ruling reinforces that relatives and close associates (here, cousins) who act on such recommendations can be sanctioned for insider dealing, even when they are not employees or insiders of the...
Suggested Considerations
Review and update MAR market abuse policies to explicitly cover the prohibition on recommending or inducing others to trade on the basis of inside information, including for non-staff related persons.
Enhance insider dealing surveillance scenarios to capture atypical trading patterns before takeover or M&A announcements, including trading by retail clients and accounts linked to employees’ family members where identifiable.
Tighten procedures for the management of inside information during corporate transactions (takeovers, mergers, acquisitions), including clear designation of insiders, controlled information flows, and logging of who is aware of pending deals.
Strengthen controls around potential transmission channels for inside information, including guidance and monitoring for staff who may informally share information with relatives or friends, and explicitly prohibit such behaviour in codes of conduct.
Provide targeted MAR training to staff, senior management, and high‑risk functions (M&A, corporate finance, strategy, legal, finance) that uses this case as an example of how the AMF infers insider dealing and the consequences for both insiders and relatives.
Key Dates
July 2021
- Period during which Mr Ytane Mamou purchased shares in the listed company on his own account, for his wife, and for his father, and when Mr Houri acquired shares following his cousin’s recommendation, prior to takeover-related announcements
20 May 2026
- AMF Enforcement Committee decision SAN‑2026‑04 is adopted, finding insider dealing by Mr Mamou and Mr Houri and imposing fines of €30,000 and €20,000 respectively
22 May 2026
- AMF publishes the news release summarising the Enforcement Committee decision and sanctions; appeal against the decision remains possible from this date in accordance with French procedural rules
Compliance Impact
Failure to prevent, detect, and report insider dealing exposes firms and individuals to substantial administrative fines, reputational damage, and potential criminal consequences under French law. The AMF’s reliance on circumstantial evidence in this case raises the bar for firms’ surveillance, documentation, and staff training, since weak explanations and poor records can be interpreted against market participants.
Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung der Liste der sanktionierten natürlichen Personen, Unternehmen und Organisationen der Verordnung vom 21. März 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Organisationen, die mit den Organisationen ISIL (Da'esh) und Al-Kaida in Verbindung stehen (SR 946.231.08), publiziert.
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. It is great to see the energy and commitment to the credit union movement evident here today and reflected in your agenda for today’s conference. 1 Today’s event is especially timely, coming not long since Minister Troy’s announcement in April of the Credit Union Strategy Project, which provides an opportunity to future proof the credit union sector to overcome challenges and meet opportunities. The Central Bank welcomes ...
The CSSF has formally repealed Circular IML 91/75 with immediate effect through the publication of Circular CSSF 26/912 on 22 May 2026. Compliance teams for Luxembourg UCIs and related structures must now ensure that no policies, procedures or prospectus provisions continue to rely on or reference IML 91/75, and instead rely on the current UCI, SIF, SICAR and EU fund law framework and subsequent CSSF circulars and administrative practice.
What Changed
- Circular IML 91/75, which set out rules for Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment, is repealed in full with effect from 22 May 2026...
All amendments to Circular IML 91/75 introduced by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901 are implicitly repealed as part of the repeal of IML 91/75 itself.
The regulatory expectations previously contained in IML 91/75 are now either superseded by later Luxembourg fund laws (including post‑1988 UCI legislation and regimes for SICARs and SIFs), later CSSF...
The historical link to the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment is effectively severed at circular level, confirming that the operative framework is now the modern suite of...
IML 91/75 is flagged as archived by the CSSF as of 22 May 2026, clarifying that it has no continuing normative or interpretative value as a live supervisory instrument.
Suggested Considerations
Identify and inventory all internal and external documents (including policies, procedures, compliance manuals, prospectuses, offering documents, service agreements and SLAs) that reference Circular IML 91/75 or its amending Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901.
Remove or replace all references to Circular IML 91/75 and its amending circulars in compliance frameworks, manuals, registers of applicable rules and control libraries, ensuring they are mapped instead to the current applicable UCI, SIF, SICAR, AIFM and relevant CSSF circulars.
Perform a gap analysis to confirm that all substantive topics previously governed by IML 91/75 in your framework are now fully covered by current Luxembourg laws, EU fund regulations and up‑to‑date CSSF circulars and FAQs.
Update training materials and onboarding content for compliance, portfolio management, risk and operations staff to reflect that IML 91/75 has been repealed and to direct staff to the current legal and regulatory sources governing UCIs and alternative funds.
Adjust internal audit and compliance monitoring programs so that any test steps or key controls referencing IML 91/75 are updated to reference the applicable current provisions and CSSF administrative practice.
Key Dates
21 January 1991
- Original Circular IML 91/75 entered into force, setting rules for undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment
22 May 2026
- Circular CSSF 26/912 is published and takes effect, repealing Circular IML 91/75 (as amended) with immediate effect and archiving it from the same date
Compliance Impact
The immediate compliance risk is moderate: there are no new obligations, but relying on a repealed circular can create legal uncertainty, documentation inconsistencies and supervisory challenges during CSSF inspections. Failure to update frameworks may weaken control design, lead to outdated disclosures and reduce credibility with the CSSF in the event of reviews or thematic inspections.
Repeal of Circular IML 91/75 related to the revision and remodelling of the rules to which Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment (“UCI”) are subject
AI Analysis
The CSSF has issued Circular CSSF 26/912, formally repealing Circular IML 91/75 (and its amendments) governing Luxembourg UCIs under the (now repealed) Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment. This is a technical clean‑up measure that removes an obsolete circular from the rulebook and confirms that the 1991 governance, organisational and investment rules under IML 91/75 no longer apply.
What Changed
- Circular IML 91/75, including its amendments by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901, is formally repealed by Circular CSSF 26/912.
The rules on “revision and remodelling of the rules to which Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment are subject” no longer form part of...
Supervisory expectations for Luxembourg UCIs are now to be derived exclusively from the current UCI regime (notably the Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment and...
Any internal compliance mappings, policy references, or control frameworks that still cite Circular IML 91/75 or its amending circulars must be treated as referencing repealed guidance and should be...
Suggested Considerations
Update your regulatory inventory and obligation registers to reflect that Circular IML 91/75 and its amending circulars (CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901) have been repealed by Circular CSSF 26/912 as of 22 May 2026.
Verify that your compliance monitoring programmes and internal audit test plans do not rely on requirements sourced from Circular IML 91/75, and re-align any such tests to the currently applicable legal and regulatory standards.
Communicate the repeal of Circular IML 91/75 internally to legal, compliance, risk, product, and fund administration teams to prevent continued reliance on obsolete rules in ongoing or future projects.
For any ongoing remediation, authorisation or approval processes that previously cited IML 91/75 as justification for a control design, reassess and document those controls against the current CSSF requirements that have effectively replaced or superseded the 1991 framework.
Maintain an audit trail evidencing the update of documentation and registers in response to Circular CSSF 26/912, including board or senior management notification where your governance framework requires it for changes in regulatory obligations.
Key Dates
21 January 1991
- Original Circular IML 91/75 on revision and remodelling of rules applicable to UCIs under the Law of 30 March 1988 is issued (subsequently amended by later circulars)
22 May 2026
- Circular CSSF 26/912 is published and Circular IML 91/75 (as amended by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901) is repealed and archived
Compliance Impact
The immediate compliance risk is low, as the circular repeals an already outdated framework; however, continuing to reference or rely on Circular IML 91/75 could create documentation inconsistencies, misalignment with current CSSF expectations and weaknesses in regulatory audits or inspections.
The Eastern Magistrates’ Court has convicted movie producer and former Pegasus Entertainment Holdings Limited chairman Wong Pak Ming of criminal insider dealing for directing his sister to buy Pegasus shares in 2017 while in possession of undisclosed price‑sensitive information about the sale of his controlling stake. The case underscores that the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) will actively prosecute “tipping” and trading via connected persons, and that listed-company insiders must treat funding and advising relatives as insider dealing risk events.
What Changed
- The conviction reinforces the SFC’s enforcement position that “counselling or procuring” another person to trade, including a close family member, while in possession of inside information...
The case highlights that use of personal communication channels (e.g., WhatsApp) to direct trading can be decisive evidence in insider dealing prosecutions, increasing expectations that firms monitor...
The conviction confirms that controlling shareholders and chairpersons of Hong Kong–listed companies are expected to treat negotiations for disposal of control stakes, memoranda of understanding...
The SFC has publicly quantified the estimated illicit profits (over HK$1 million) earned via the relative’s trading, signalling a continued focus on disgorgement and benefit analysis in enforcement...
The case continues the SFC’s trend of using criminal prosecution, rather than solely civil Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings, for insider dealing involving abuse of senior positions and close...
Suggested Considerations
Review and update insider dealing and market misconduct policies to explicitly cover “counselling or procuring” trading by family members, nominees, and other connected persons, in line with Part XIII and Part XIV of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571).
Update staff and director training materials to include concrete examples of prohibited conduct, including funding relatives’ accounts and giving trading instructions via messaging apps while in possession of inside information about control transactions, MOUs, or earnest money arrangements.
Strengthen personal account dealing policies to require pre‑clearance and enhanced scrutiny for trades in securities of issuers where the employee, director, or major shareholder is directly or indirectly involved in control stake negotiations or other price‑sensitive corporate events.
Implement or enhance procedures to identify and log potential inside information events (such as MOUs for stake sales, receipt of earnest money, or other significant transaction milestones) and to trigger trading blackouts for relevant insiders and their close associates.
Conduct targeted thematic reviews of recent and ongoing corporate finance mandates and control stake transactions handled by the firm to identify any gaps in information barriers, wall‑crossing procedures, or monitoring of insiders’ and their relatives’ trading activities.
Key Dates
31 October 2012
– Pegasus Entertainment Holdings Limited is listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
09 January 2015
– Pegasus transfers its listing from GEM to the Main Board
25 August 2017
– Pegasus receives HK$10 million earnest money from a potential buyer of Wong’s controlling stake; on the same day, Wong starts transferring funds to his sister, who begins buying Pegasus shares
30 August 2017
– From this date, Wong sends multiple WhatsApp messages to his sister, advising on timing and price for purchasing Pegasus shares
17 October 2017
– End of the period during which Wong’s sister buys more than nine million Pegasus shares using, in large part, funds transferred by Wong
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high: failure to prevent or detect insider dealing, including via relatives and informal communication channels, can result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment, fines, reputational damage, and regulatory sanctions for both individuals and firms. Firms that do not strengthen their controls around insider information and connected-person dealing risk heightened SFC scrutiny and potential enforcement.
The Board of Directors of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA has appointed Simon Brönnimann as Head of the Recovery and Resolution division and as a member of the Executive Board. He will assume leadership of the division, which he has been leading on an interim basis since April 2026, on a permanent basis from 1 June 2026.
At the 13th Asian Monetary Policy Forum, Mr Edward S. Robinson, Deputy Managing Director (Economic Policy) & Chief Economist, MAS, opened the Forum and outlined how policymakers are facing large interconnected shocks from tariffs, geopolitics, energy, and technological change. Central banks must protect their credibility through technical competence and impartiality in this challenging environment.
Tijdens de verenigingsdag van het Verbond van Verzekeraars stond Hanzo van Beusekom (AFM) stil bij de impact van data en digitalisering op de verzekeringssector. In zijn speech schetste hij hoe technologische ontwikkelingen het mogelijk maken om premies steeds persoonlijker te maken. Dat biedt kansen, zoals beter inzicht in risico’s en gerichtere preventie, maar zet tegelijk de solidariteit onder druk. Volgens Van Beusekom is juist dát de kern van verzekeren: risico’s samen dragen.
MMF Asset management The AMF complies with ESMA’s guidelines on updating the stress scenario parameters provided for in Article 28 of the Money Market Funds Regulation for 2026
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and National Futures Association (NFA) today announced that they have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to enhance their cooperation, coordination, and information sharing in areas of common…
Vooral jongeren blijven achter bij het maken van beleggingskeuzes. Terwijl zij juist nog een lange beleggingshorizon hebben. Dat schrijft de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in haar rapport ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’, gebaseerd op data van pensioenuitvoerders over 2024. Dit jaar bevat het rapport ook inzichten uit de klachtenrapportage die pensioenfondsen en premiepensioeninstellingen (PPI’s) indienen.
The PRA’s Policy Statement PS13/26 finalises the CP20/25 proposals on UK branches of third‑country (re)insurers, including raising the subsidiarisation threshold, embedding existing reporting and investment waivers into the Rulebook, and updating supervisory expectations on ORSA and resolution. Compliance teams at third‑country branches must now recalibrate threshold monitoring, overhaul reporting processes, and update governance and documentation to align with the revised Third Country Branches and Reporting Parts of the PRA Rulebook, updated SSs, and new Statements of Policy.
---
What Changed
- The PRA confirms an increase in the third‑country branch subsidiarisation threshold for liabilities covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) from £500 million to £600 million,...
Third‑country branch undertakings are now explicitly required to notify the PRA where projections show their FSCS‑covered liabilities may exceed the £600 million subsidiarisation threshold within a...
The PRA embeds in the Rulebook new quantitative thresholds for regulatory reporting, replacing the existing modification by consent (MbC) under Solvency II Reporting 2.2(1) for third‑country...
Under the new regime, only branches (excluding pure reinsurance branches) with at least £1 billion gross written premiums or £2 billion in branch provisions (based on the prior year’s annual...
The PRA discontinues quarterly reporting for certain non‑life claims templates and reinstates two annual reporting templates (IR.19.01.01 – non‑life insurance claims and IR.20.01.01 – development of...
Suggested Considerations
Assess current and projected FSCS‑covered UK branch liabilities against the new £600 million subsidiarisation threshold and implement or update a robust three‑year forecasting process to identify potential threshold breaches.
Update internal PRA notification procedures and early‑warning triggers so that the branch informs the PRA promptly if forecasts show FSCS‑covered liabilities could exceed the £600 million threshold within three years.
For branches approaching or exceeding the new threshold, initiate or refresh internal structural options analysis (branch vs subsidiary), including timeline, capital, governance, and operational impacts, and prepare for early engagement with the PRA on subsidiarisation expectations.
Map gross written premiums and branch provisions against the new £1 billion GWP and £2 billion provisions reporting thresholds and determine whether the branch will be subject to the full or reduced suite of third‑country branch regulatory reporting templates from 31 December 2026.
Redesign regulatory reporting processes, systems, and controls to align with the new reporting perimeter, including identifying which templates will be required, adjusting data capture, and ensuring capacity to produce reinstated templates IR.19.01.01 and IR.20.01.01 on an annual basis.
Key Dates
16 September 2025
– PRA publishes CP20/25, proposing changes to third‑country branch policy, including the higher subsidiarisation threshold and new reporting thresholds
16 December 2025
– Consultation period for CP20/25 closes; representations received from affected firms and stakeholders
Q1–Q2 2026
– PRA indicates that the increase in subsidiarisation threshold from £500 million to £600 million would take effect on publication of the relevant policy statement (PS13/26), with immediate relevance for threshold monitoring and branch vs subsidiary planning
31 December 2026
– Rulebook and policy changes (including amendments to the Third Country Branches and Reporting Parts, reinstatement of annual templates IR.19.01.01 and IR.20.01.01, embedded reporting thresholds, embedded pure reinsurance relief, updates to SS44/15, SS41/15, SS19/16, SoP6/24, SoP7/24, and SoP1/19, and disapplication/restatement of EIOPA Branch Guidelines) are scheduled to come into force
Compliance Impact
The impact is material for all UK branches of third‑country (re)insurers, particularly those near the new subsidiarisation and reporting thresholds, with consequences including potential forced subsidiarisation, expanded reporting burdens, or supervisory challenge if expectations on forecasting, ORSA, or resolution planning are not met. Non‑compliance could trigger PRA supervisory interventions, restrictions on business, and increased scrutiny during authorisation and ongoing supervision.
Collective investments Marketing Financial products Retail investors Journalists The AMF unveils its 2026-2028 financial education plan to boost women’s investment
Een gelijk speelveld, meer duidelijkheid voor marktpartijen, ruimte voor verantwoorde innovatie en een zorgvuldige bescherming van beleggers. Vanuit die visie wil de AFM zorgen voor meer duidelijkheid over beleggingsconcepten, waaronder automatisch herbalanceren en risicoafbouw binnen execution-only. De markt vroeg meer duidelijkheid; die willen we geven met een doorontwikkeling van dit thema in de Leidraad kwalificatie innovatieve dienstverlening.
Singapore, 21 May 2026… The 13th Asian Monetary Policy Forum (AMPF), organised by the Asian Bureau of Finance and Economics Research (ABFER), the National University of Singapore (NUS) Business School, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), will take place in Singapore today and tomorrow. The AMPF brings together leading academics and policymakers to examine key economic and financial issues in Asia and the world.
Backgrounder: Draft Guideline on the Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto-asset Exposures (Banking) (2027)
AI Analysis
OSFI has launched a 60‑day public consultation on targeted amendments to its Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline, focused on recognizing cross‑exchange hedging for Group 2a crypto‑assets traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets. For compliance teams at Canadian federally regulated banks, this creates a near‑term need to assess current market‑neutral crypto strategies, capital models, and hedging documentation to leverage the potential capital relief while ensuring alignment with the revised prudential requirements.
What Changed
- OSFI is proposing targeted revisions to the existing Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline, rather than a wholesale rewrite, in order to better reflect...
The draft changes would explicitly recognize cross‑exchange hedging for Group 2a crypto‑assets when the instruments are traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets, allowing more...
Under the proposal, banks’ market‑neutral strategies in Group 2a crypto‑assets would receive capital treatment that more closely reflects actual economic risk, reducing instances where only partial...
No change is proposed to the risk weights applied to Group 2a crypto‑assets, meaning existing Group 2a capital charge levels remain intact under the draft revisions.
No change is proposed to the eligibility of Group 2a crypto‑assets as collateral, so current collateral treatment and related haircuts remain unchanged by this consultation.
Suggested Considerations
Assess whether your institution currently has, or plans to have, exposures to Group 2a crypto‑assets traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets, and map all related positions, hedges, and trading strategies.
Review existing market‑neutral and cross‑exchange hedging strategies for crypto‑asset exposures to determine how expanded recognition of cross‑exchange hedges could change risk‑weighted assets, leverage exposure, and liquidity metrics under OSFI’s proposed treatment.
Perform an impact assessment and scenario analysis comparing existing capital and liquidity requirements for Group 2a exposures under the current guideline versus the proposed cross‑exchange hedge recognition, quantifying potential capital relief or shifts in capital allocation.
Update internal capital policy documentation, trading desk procedures, and risk‑management standards to incorporate the proposed hedging recognition framework, including eligibility criteria for “regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets,” subject to final OSFI requirements.
Prepare and submit a consultation response to OSFI by 20 July 2026, highlighting any operational, risk‑measurement, model, or documentation challenges with implementing cross‑exchange hedge recognition and recommending clarifications where needed.
Key Dates
21 May 2026
- OSFI publishes the backgrounder and launches a 60‑day public consultation on proposed updates to the Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline
20 July 2026DEADLINE
- Consultation period closes; deadline for stakeholders to submit comments to OSFI at Consultations@osfi-bsif.gc.ca
September 2026
- OSFI expects to publish the final revised Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline
01 November 2026
- Implementation date for the final guideline for banks with a fiscal year ending 31 October
01 January 2027
- Implementation date for the final guideline for banks with a fiscal year ending 31 December
Compliance Impact
This is a prudential capital and liquidity calibration change rather than a new conduct obligation, but failure to implement the revised guideline correctly could lead to misstated regulatory capital and liquidity metrics, potential supervisory findings, and restrictions on crypto‑asset activities. Given the explicit implementation dates and OSFI’s focus on crypto‑asset risk, non‑compliance could attract heightened supervisory scrutiny and remedial actions.
OSFI has launched a 60‑day public consultation on targeted amendments to Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management, to update interest rate shock scenarios in line with the latest Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) standards. Compliance teams at federally regulated deposit‑taking institutions must prepare for recalibrated interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) measurements and associated Pillar 3 disclosure changes that will become effective for fiscal years starting late 2026.
What Changed
- OSFI proposes to amend Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management to update prescribed interest rate shock scenarios used for measuring interest rate risk in the banking book.
The interest rate shock calibration will be aligned with the most recent BCBS methodology for IRRBB, including improved treatment of environments where policy rates are close to zero or negative.
The time series used to calibrate interest rate shock scenarios will be extended from a previous cut‑off of December 2015 to now incorporate data through December 2023, capturing the recent period of...
OSFI intends to strengthen transparency and market discipline by consulting simultaneously on proposed amendments to Pillar 3 disclosure expectations related to interest rate risk in the banking book.
The revised B‑12 guideline will introduce updated expectations for IRR measurement, monitoring, and reporting that ensure institutions recognize more recent market experience in their internal risk...
Suggested Considerations
Perform a gap analysis comparing current interest rate risk in the banking book methodologies, shock scenarios, and assumptions against the proposed revised Guideline B‑12 parameters and BCBS‑aligned calibration approach.
Engage internal stakeholders (risk management, treasury/ALM, finance, regulatory reporting, model validation, and internal audit) to review the consultation text and identify operational, data, and model impacts from the extended December 2015–December 2023 calibration window and new shock design.
Prepare and submit a detailed written response to OSFI at Consultations@osfi-bsif.gc.ca by 20 July 2026, highlighting any concerns with scenario calibration, procyclicality, data availability, systems impacts, and implementation timelines.
Update IRRBB models, interest rate scenario engines, behavioral assumptions (e.g., non‑maturity deposits, prepayments), and risk metrics (e.g., economic value of equity and earnings‑at‑risk) to incorporate the revised OSFI shock scenarios once the final guideline is published on 10 September 2026.
Revise internal IRRBB policies, risk appetite statements, limits frameworks, and governance documentation to align with the updated Guideline B‑12 expectations and ensure Board and senior management oversight reflects the new calibration.
Key Dates
21 May 2026
- OSFI launches a 60‑day public consultation on targeted amendments to Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management and related IRRBB Pillar 3 disclosure expectations
20 July 2026DEADLINE
- Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments on the draft Guideline B‑12 amendments and associated IRRBB disclosure proposals to Consultations@osfi-bsif.gc.ca
10 September 2026
- OSFI plans to publish the final revised Guideline B‑12, together with a non‑attributed summary of comments received and OSFI’s responses
01 November 2026
- Revised Guideline B‑12 becomes effective for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 October
01 January 2027
- Revised Guideline B‑12 becomes effective for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 December
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the revised Guideline B‑12 and associated IRRBB disclosure expectations may result in supervisory findings, remediation orders, heightened capital expectations, and potential reputational damage due to incomplete or misleading interest rate risk reporting. Given recent rate volatility and OSFI’s focus on IRRBB, supervisors are likely to treat deficiencies in implementation or disclosure as material.
Backgrounder: Draft Guideline B‑2 – Large Exposure Limits for Small and Medium-Sized Banks
AI Analysis
OSFI has launched a 90‑day consultation (to 19 August 2026) on a draft revised Guideline B‑2 that would extend the 2019 large exposure regime to Category 1 and Category 2 small and medium‑sized banks (SMSBs), replacing the legacy 1994 large exposure guideline for those firms. Compliance teams in affected SMSBs will need to align limits, exposure measurement, counterparty‑grouping methodologies, and reporting processes with the DSIB‑style framework ahead of implementation targeted for November 2027 / January 2028.
What Changed
- Extends the scope of Guideline B‑2 (Large Exposure Limits) beyond domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs) to include Category 1 and Category 2 small and medium‑sized banks (SMSBs), bringing...
Replaces the existing 1994 large exposure guideline for Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs with a single modern framework aligned to the January 2019 version of Guideline B‑2.
Removes Category 3 SMSBs from the large exposure guideline regime, so they will no longer be subject to OSFI large exposure limits under Guideline B‑2.
Removes foreign bank branches from the scope of the large exposure guideline, so foreign bank branches will no longer be subject to Guideline B‑2 requirements.
Introduces a hard limit for Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs that total exposures to a single counterparty or group of connected counterparties must not exceed 25% of the institution’s Tier 1 capital.
Suggested Considerations
Conduct an impact assessment to quantify current single‑name and connected‑counterparty exposures relative to the proposed 25% of Tier 1 capital limit for Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs.
Identify and map all existing large exposure policies, procedures, and limits that are based on the 1994 large exposure guideline and plan their replacement with a framework aligned to the 2019 Guideline B‑2 approach.
Review and, where necessary, redesign methodologies and internal criteria for identifying groups of connected counterparties so they are consistent with OSFI’s updated expectations under the draft revised Guideline B‑2.
Update credit risk measurement processes and systems so that exposures for large exposure purposes are calculated net of eligible credit risk mitigation in line with OSFI capital requirements.
Assess data, systems, and reporting capabilities to ensure the institution can produce quarterly large exposure reports using the same template as larger banks, including drill‑downs by counterparty and connected counterparty groups.
Key Dates
21 May 2026
- OSFI launches a 90‑day public consultation on the draft revised Guideline B‑2 – Large Exposure Limits for small and medium‑sized banks
19 August 2026DEADLINE
- Consultation period closes; this is the deadline for stakeholders to submit comments to OSFI on the draft Guideline B‑2
February 2027
- OSFI expects to publish the final revised Guideline B‑2 following review of consultation feedback
01 November 2027
- Planned implementation date of the final Guideline B‑2 for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 October
01 January 2028
- Planned implementation date of the final Guideline B‑2 for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 December
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the final Guideline B‑2 could lead to supervisory findings, mandated remediation, constraints on business growth, and potential capital add‑ons if OSFI assesses concentration risk as inadequately managed. Severe or persistent breaches of large exposure limits could be treated as a material prudential weakness, with implications for recovery planning, supervisory ratings, and, in extreme cases, enforcement action.
ESMA publishes shortlist of candidates for position of Chair 20 May 2026 About ESMA Board of Supervisors Press Releases The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published the shortlist of candidates for the position of Chair, which it has sent to the Council of the European Union (Council) and the European Parliament (Parliament). The Council will appoint the Chair following confirmation by the Parliament. The Board of Supe...
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) waarschuwt voor telefoontjes van mogelijke oplichters die uit naam van de AFM bellen en zo proberen u gevoelige informatie te laten delen.
Fast‑growing and innovative financial services businesses can now apply for more support to help them grow. The FCA’s Scale-up Unit provides tailored support to firms, helping them navigate regulation so they can scale sustainably. The unit is now open to solo-regulated firms to apply.The unit offers a dedicated point of contact and practical support to help navigate regulatory processes, develop innovative products and understand the impact of policy changes.Jessica Rusu, FCA chief data, inf...
Half (49%) of young drivers have bought insurance through social media or messaging apps, new research reveals. With 4 in 10 (39%) unconfident in spotting the signs of a fake policy, thousands could be paying for cover that doesn’t exist. The FCA is warning 17-to 25-year-old drivers about 'ghost broking' scams where criminals sell bogus insurance policies through social media and messaging platforms.Ghost brokers pose as legitimate insurance sellers but offer cheap rates. The policies they se...
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA is incorporating two existing circulars on risk diversification at banks and securities firms into a new ordinance. In doing so it is fulfilling the requirement for the format compliance of regulation in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Financial Market Supervision Act.
Vanaf 11 oktober 2027 verkort de afwikkelingscyclus voor effectentransacties van T+2 naar T+1. Dit vraagt om aanpassingen in systemen en processen in de hele kapitaalmarktketen. Om de voortgang te monitoren, roept de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) marktpartijen op om twee T+1-gereedheidsenquêtes in te vullen. Het invullen van beide enquêtes kan uiterlijk tot 9 juni 2026. De uitkomsten geven inzicht in de voorbereiding van de sector en maken duidelijk waar extra aandacht nodig is voor T+1.
MAS has revoked the Major Payment Institution Licence of Bsquared Technology Pte Ltd (BSQ) with effect from 14 May 2026. BSQ is no longer permitted to provide digital payment token services in Singapore under the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act) from the same date.
Singapore, 20 May 2026 … In two separate cases, Mr Tan Chun Yong (Mr Tan) and Mr Xie Jianfeng (Mr Xie) were convicted and sentenced on 19 May 2026 to 10 weeks’ imprisonment , and to a fine of $200,000 respectively, for trading offences under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA).
Opening Address by Mr Chee Hong Tat, Minister for National Development, and Deputy Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, at the Financing Asia’s Transition Conference on 20 May 2026.
On 19 May 2026, the CFTC Division of Enforcement issued a new cooperation advisory that supersedes all prior CFTC cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and policies. For compliance teams, this resets the playbook for how voluntary self‑reporting, cooperation, remediation, and restitution/disgorgement are assessed for mitigation credit, including a clarified path to potential declinations where specific conditions are met.
What Changed
- The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...
Suggested Considerations
Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.
Key Dates
19 May 2026
- CFTC Division of Enforcement issues the new cooperation advisory, which supersedes all prior cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and becomes the operative policy for ongoing and future enforcement matters
Compliance Impact
The impact is high: the advisory reshapes incentives around self‑reporting and cooperation and directly affects whether firms can obtain declinations or material penalty reductions in CFTC enforcement actions. Failure to align investigation, remediation, and reporting practices with the new framework may result in higher civil monetary penalties, loss of declination eligibility, and more intrusive enforcement scrutiny.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed amendments to its rules and forms governing registered offerings that are designed to increase efficiency, flexibility, and cost savings for public companies while maintaining robust investor…
AI Analysis
The SEC has issued a proposing release, “SEC Proposes Transformative Reforms to Help Public Companies Conduct Registered Offerings and Simplify Reporting Requirements,” that would overhaul key aspects of the Securities Act of 1933 registered offering framework and associated Exchange Act reporting. The proposal is aimed at streamlining shelf registration, communications, and periodic reporting to reduce cost and friction for seasoned public companies while preserving core disclosure and liability safeguards, so issuer compliance teams will need to reassess their entire offering and disclosure playbook if the rules are adopted.
What Changed
*(Based on the SEC’s description and consistent with prior offering‑reform initiatives; specific rule and form cites will need to be confirmed against the proposing release once reviewed in full.)*
The SEC proposes to modernize the shelf registration process for Form S‑3 and F‑3 issuers, including expanded use of automatic or “universal” shelves and greater flexibility to add classes of...
The proposal would streamline incorporation by reference, allowing more categories of Exchange Act reports and exhibits to be incorporated into Securities Act registration statements and prospectuses...
The SEC proposes to expand the use of “access equals delivery” for final prospectuses, permitting issuers in additional circumstances to satisfy Securities Act Section 5(b)(2) delivery requirements...
The reforms would broaden the range of permissible communications in connection with registered offerings, including issuer and underwriter use of certain factual and forward‑looking information,...
Suggested Considerations
Monitor the Federal Register and SEC website for the full proposing release text and the precise comment deadline for this rulemaking.
Coordinate among legal, finance, and investor relations teams to prepare and submit a comment letter to the SEC addressing practical implications of the proposed offering and reporting reforms for your issuer, including any concerns about liability, operational feasibility, and investor impact.
Inventory all existing shelf registration statements (including automatic shelves), universal shelves, and continuous‑offering programs and identify where proposed changes to shelf mechanics, incorporation by reference, or prospectus updating could affect structure, timing, or disclosure.
Review current offering communication practices, including use of free writing prospectuses, roadshow materials, and research reports, and map them against the proposed expanded communications safe harbors to determine what additional flexibilities could be used in future offerings.
Assess your firm’s use of Exchange Act reports incorporated by reference into Securities Act registration statements and plan to revise drafting and review procedures to take advantage of streamlined incorporation while managing Securities Act liability for incorporated information.
Key Dates
TBD 2026
– Federal Register publication of the SEC proposing release “SEC Proposes Transformative Reforms to Help Public Companies Conduct Registered Offerings and Simplify Reporting Requirements,” starting the formal comment period
TBD 2026DEADLINE
– End of SEC comment period (typically 30–60 days after Federal Register publication; exact deadline to be confirmed in the notice)
TBD (est. late 2026 or 2027)
– Potential adoption of final rules by the SEC, following review of comment letters
TBD (effective date)
– Final rules become effective on a date specified in the adopting release (often 30–60 days after Federal Register publication of the final rules)
TBD (compliance date / transition period)DEADLINE
– Staggered or delayed compliance dates for specific form and disclosure changes, expected to give registrants time to update registration statements, shelf programs, and periodic reporting templates
Compliance Impact
Because the proposal seeks mainly to reduce friction and modernize existing processes rather than impose new prohibitions, the risk of traditional “non‑compliance” arises primarily from failing to adapt offering and disclosure practices to the updated framework, potentially leading to inefficient capital‑raising, errors in form usage, or Securities Act liability from misapplied incorporation and communication rules. Issuers and intermediaries that do not update their procedures once rules are finalized could face increased regulatory scrutiny, offering delays, or remedial filings.
Governor of Central Bank of Ireland Gabriel Makhlouf today (Tuesday 19 th May) spoke at the AFME Annual European Financial Integration conference , where he called for a more ambitious approach to Europe’s Single Market, arguing that greater integration in goods, services and capital is essential to enhance European competitiveness and resilience. The Governor outlined two primary conditions for building a genuine single capital market: completing the regulatory architecture and establishing ...
Thank you for the invitation to speak this afternoon. I want to talk about the Single Market, which is one of Europe's greatest political and economic achievements. Over more than three decades, it has been an engine of European growth and resilience, delivering scale, opportunity, and tangible benefits for citizens and businesses across the Union. As António Costa has pointed out, it connects 450 million consumers and 32 million companies, supporting around 56 million jobs through trade with...
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns consumers about the company Elementum Ventures and the services it is offering. Bafin suspects the unknown operators, who claim to be based in New York, United States, of offering consumers financial, investment and cryptoasset services without the required authorisation. Elementum Ventures is currently offering its services via the websites elementumventures(.)ai and elementumventures(.)com.
ESMA Guidelines on stress test scenarios under Article 28 of the Money Market Fund Regulation – Update 2025 (ESMA50-481369926-30585)
AI Analysis
Circular CSSF 26/911 informs Luxembourg money market fund (MMF) managers that the CSSF is integrating ESMA’s 2025 update of the stress test scenarios under Article 28 of the Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR), and that these new ESMA Guidelines now form part of the Luxembourg supervisory expectations. The circular repeals and replaces Circular CSSF 25/877 as of 26 May 2026 and requires MMFs and their managers to apply the 2025 stress test parameters for MMF reporting from the reporting date 30 June 2026 onwards, driving immediate model, data, and reporting changes.
What Changed
- Circular CSSF 26/911 replaces Circular CSSF 25/877 and integrates ESMA’s 2025 Guidelines on stress test scenarios under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 (MMFR), making the updated scenarios...
The 2025 ESMA Guidelines (Ref. ESMA50-481369926-30585) update the common reference stress test parameters for MMFs, reflecting more recent market conditions and liquidity risk drivers than the 2024...
The circular clarifies that MMFs and MMF managers must use the updated 2025 ESMA stress test scenarios when preparing the MMF reporting required under the MMFR and the related Commission Implementing...
Circular CSSF 26/911 confirms that the 2025 Guidelines and their translations, published by ESMA on 26 March 2026, are now integrated into CSSF supervisory practice, following the ESMA process...
The circular reiterates that MMFs and their managers must tailor the ESMA reference scenarios to the specificities of each MMF, adding additional risk factors or requirements where needed to ensure...
Suggested Considerations
Identify all MMFs and MMF mandates in scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 for which the CSSF is the competent authority and confirm that they are currently using the 2024 ESMA stress test framework under Circular CSSF 25/877.
Obtain and review in detail the ESMA 2025 Guidelines on stress test scenarios (ESMA50-481369926-30585) and the annexed parameters as integrated by Circular CSSF 26/911, comparing them line‑by‑line to the 2024 version to map all methodological and parameter changes.
Update the MMF stress testing policy and procedures to reference Circular CSSF 26/911 and the 2025 ESMA Guidelines, including explicit descriptions of the scenarios, calibration choices, modelling techniques, and governance for scenario approval.
Recalibrate stress testing models and tools used for MMFs to reflect the 2025 common reference parameters, ensuring that interest rate shocks, credit spread moves, liquidity shocks, redemption scenarios, and concentration risks are aligned with the new ESMA specifications.
Perform impact analyses on representative MMFs using both 2024 and 2025 parameters to quantify changes in stress outcomes, and prepare internal briefing materials for senior management and boards explaining the impacts on liquidity and risk profiles.
Key Dates
26 March 2026
- ESMA publishes the English, French, and German translations of the 2025 Guidelines on stress test scenarios under Article 28 MMFR on its website, starting the two‑month period to application
26 May 2026
- Circular CSSF 26/911 enters into force and Circular CSSF 25/877 is repealed and replaced, making the 2025 ESMA Guidelines the applicable stress testing framework in Luxembourg
30 June 2026DEADLINE
- MMFs and MMF managers must apply the 2025 ESMA Guidelines for the preparation of the required MMF reporting as from the reporting date 30 June 2026 onwards, meaning that stress test calculations underlying this and subsequent reports must be based on the 2025 parameters
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with Circular CSSF 26/911 and the integrated 2025 ESMA stress test Guidelines can lead to MMF reporting deficiencies, supervisory findings, and potential risk‑management remediation measures imposed by the CSSF, including expectations to strengthen liquidity and governance. Persistent or material breaches could contribute to more intrusive supervisory engagement, restrictions on MMF activities, or sanctions under the MMFR and Luxembourg supervisory framework.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns consumers about the services offered on the website bitcoinera.com. Bafin has information that this website is being used to offer financial, investment and cryptoasset services without the required authorisation.
When consumers are wronged, many rightly seek fair compensation. Some complain directly, without paying a penny using free Ombudsman services. Others turn to claims management companies (CMCs) or law firms.They can provide a valuable service and support access to justice.However, we’ve seen firsthand from the way some claims firms have handled car finance complaints that, all too often, they make a difficult situation worse.Poor practices include unwanted texts or emails sent to people who ne...
At the IBF Financial Industry Fiesta 2026, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, and Chairman, MAS announced the launch of the Young Talent Programme for AI in Finance, which aims to equip students with both applied AI and financial sector skills that are in demand.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today rescinded a policy, codified in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal rules of procedures, stating that when it chooses to settle an enforcement action in which a sanction is imposed, it will not settle unless the…
AI Analysis
The SEC has rescinded its long‑standing “no‑deny” settlement policy, previously codified in Rule 202.5(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, which had prohibited settling respondents from publicly denying the Commission’s allegations in cases resolved on a “neither admit nor deny” basis. This materially alters how firms can speak about resolved SEC enforcement matters and will directly affect settlement negotiations, collateral consequences analysis, and post‑settlement communications and disclosure strategies.
What Changed
- The SEC has rescinded the policy in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal Rules of Practice that conditioned settlements involving sanctions on the respondent’s agreement not to publicly deny the...
Settling parties in SEC enforcement actions may now have greater scope to make public statements that deny or contest aspects of the SEC’s allegations, subject to the specific language of each...
The traditional “neither admit nor deny” construct will no longer automatically include a built‑in prohibition on denials, which means the SEC staff will need to negotiate any desired limitations on...
Communications and disclosure provisions in SEC settlement papers (including “undertakings” and clauses governing press releases and investor communications) are likely to become more tailored and...
The rescission increases the importance of alignment between legal, compliance, and communications teams when crafting public statements following an SEC settlement, because statements that deny...
Suggested Considerations
Review existing internal playbooks for handling SEC investigations and settlements and update them to reflect the rescission of Rule 202.5(e), including how settlement language on admissions, denials, and public statements is negotiated.
For matters currently under SEC investigation or in active settlement negotiations, direct outside and in‑house counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek greater flexibility for post‑settlement denials or clarifications in the consent language and undertakings.
Conduct an inventory of significant historical SEC settlements that included “no‑deny” provisions and identify where ongoing communications plans, disclosure narratives, or litigation strategies may be constrained by legacy language.
For high‑impact historical orders with restrictive “no‑deny” clauses, obtain legal advice on whether and how to approach the SEC about potential modification or clarification of those provisions in light of the Commission’s changed policy.
Train senior management, board members, and spokespersons on the revised SEC posture, emphasising that while denials may now be more permissible, inaccurate or overly aggressive denials could adversely affect ongoing private litigation, insurance recoveries, or relationships with other regulators.
Key Dates
18 May 2026
- The SEC issues the press release announcing rescission of its “no‑deny” policy codified in Rule 202.5(e), signalling immediate policy change for new enforcement settlements
TBD
- Any subsequent SEC guidance, FAQs, or amendments to the Rules of Practice or Enforcement Manual that clarify how post‑settlement denials will be treated in future cases may be issued at a later date
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance will not typically arise from the policy rescission itself, but from making public statements that conflict with specific settlement terms, are misleading to investors, or undermine other legal obligations. Missteps in this area can trigger renewed SEC scrutiny, private securities litigation exposure, reputational damage, and potential challenges with insurers and other regulators.
The Treasury has published its policy statement today on reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Reform of the CCA is an important step towards a more flexible regime that supports effective competition and innovation, while maintaining appropriate consumer protection both now and in the future. The proposals set out a framework that places greater emphasis on FCA rules and guidance rather than prescriptive requirements set out in legislation.We intend to consult on the key elements of ...
AI Analysis
HM Treasury has issued a policy statement on reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), signalling a strategic shift from prescriptive, statute-based requirements towards an FCA rulebook-led regime for consumer credit. The FCA’s response confirms it will consult on moving key CCA elements into FCA rules and guidance, anchored in the Consumer Duty, which will materially reshape documentation, processes and conduct standards across the consumer credit lifecycle.
What Changed
- The UK Government has confirmed a programme to reform the Consumer Credit Act 1974, moving away from detailed prescriptive legislative requirements towards a more flexible framework based on FCA...
The FCA has stated its intention to consult on “key elements” of the consumer credit framework that are currently in primary or secondary legislation, where it has the power to do so, covering the...
The Consumer Duty (Principle 12, PRIN 2A) is explicitly confirmed as the overarching framework for the future consumer credit regime, meaning consumer credit firms will be expected to demonstrate...
The FCA has signalled that existing consumer rights and protections under the CCA (including cancellation and withdrawal rights, termination, and early settlement rights) will be reviewed and...
Any new FCA rules arising from CCA reform will be supported by a formal cost–benefit analysis and shaped through stakeholder engagement, implying a structured consultation process (likely one or more...
Suggested Considerations
Establish an internal CCA reform working group (legal, compliance, product, operations) to track HM Treasury and FCA publications on Consumer Credit Act reform and prepare coordinated responses.
Map all existing product lines and customer journeys against current CCA and CONC requirements to identify areas most likely to be affected if obligations move from legislation into FCA rules (e.g. pre‑contract disclosure, notices of sums in arrears, default notices, early settlement calculations).
Review your Consumer Duty implementation for consumer credit products (especially outcomes testing, fair value assessments and customer support processes) to ensure it can absorb additional or re‑framed requirements that may migrate from the CCA into the FCA Handbook.
Compile an inventory of CCA‑dependent documentation (agreements, pre‑contract information, statutory notices, arrears and default letters, early settlement communications) and assess the effort required to update them if the form or content requirements are recast in FCA rules.
Enhance regulatory horizon‑scanning processes to include systematic monitoring of HM Treasury CCA reform material and FCA consultations, ensuring early awareness of consultation questions and proposed Handbook text.
Key Dates
TBD
– HM Treasury’s policy statement has been published, but no specific implementation dates for CCA reform or FCA rule changes are given in the FCA response
TBD
– FCA consultation(s) on key elements of the consumer credit framework are announced as forthcoming; exact dates are not yet specified
TBD
– Future milestones such as FCA Policy Statements, Handbook changes and statutory amendments will follow, but no indicative timetable is provided in the FCA response
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the eventual FCA rules replacing or supplementing CCA provisions will expose firms to supervisory intervention, enforcement action, consumer redress and potentially large remediation exercises under the Consumer Duty. Given the centrality of consumer credit to many business models and the likely breadth of changes, firms that do not prepare early may face significant operational, conduct and litigation risk.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns consumers about the services offered on the website beehivecapital(.)pro, previously beehivecapital(.)org. Bafin has information that this website is being used to offer financial, investment and cryptoasset services without the required authorisation.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns consumers about the services offered on the website nordstate(.)org. Bafin has information that this website is being used to offer financial, investment and cryptoasset services without the required authorisation.
The German Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns about the websites handelq(.)com and bulltrading24(.)com. It is suspected that the unknown operators are offering financial and crypto-asset services without the necessary authorisation. The websites advertise that investments in financial instruments such as cryptocurrencies are possible via the supposed trading platform.
UK financial firms can adopt tokenisation and distributed ledger technology (DLT) with greater confidence, as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England set out a shared vision and seek industry views on the future of UK wholesale markets. Tokenisation is the process of creating a digital representation of a real-world asset – such as a share, bond or unit of currency – on a digital ledger. It has the potential to streamline wholesale markets, making everything from issuing...
Why frontier AI matters for firmsArtificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve rapidly. Frontier AI models represent a step-change in capability, with significant implications for cyber security and operational resilience.The cyber capabilities of current frontier AI models are already exceeding what a skilled practitioner could achieve, and at a significantly higher speed, greater scale, and lower cost. These capabilities, if used maliciously, amplify cyber threats to firms’ safety and so...
The Central Bank has today (15 May 2025) announced the appointment of Glenn Calverley to the role of Director of Finance and Business Performance. Mr Calverley will take up his role with effect from 1 September 2026. Glenn brings a wealth of experience to this role, most recently as Director of Strategy & Governance, a role he has held since 2021. He joined the Central Bank in 2015, initially as Head of Organisational Risk and later as Head of Strategy & Foresight. Prior to joining the Centra...
Central Bank of Ireland has made the memoir of former Governor T.K. Whitaker available digitally for the first time. While the memoir has been available for in-person viewing in the Central Bank's archives, it is now accessible online at www.centralbank.ie , allowing a wider audience to engage with this important historical document. The publication of T.K. Whitaker's Memoir : Central Bank and Government, 1969-1976 marks 110 years since T.K. Whitaker’s birth and 50 years since the end of his ...
Singapore, 15 May 2026…The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) today released its response to the feedback on proposals to enhance the requirements for Product Highlights Sheets (PHS) and streamline the distribution safeguards for complex products.
The conflict in the Middle East means cost of living pressures remain top of mind – with people facing increased costs for utility bills, food and fuel. We want to remind you about our clear expectations on the support you should offer consumers in challenging times, through the Consumer Duty and our rules on protections for borrowers in difficulty.
Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive at the FCA's financial crime conference. A new threat landscapeFinancial crime is changing – fast.It’s more technologically enabled. More organised than ever before. And moving at speed.Which is why the fight against financial crime sits at the heart of our 5-year strategy.But it’s not just the volume that’s changed; it’s who is behind it.Organised criminal groups running professional networks that operate across borders.Take investment fraud.A pers...
ESMA issues guidance on effective use of resolution tools in CCP crisis planning 13 May 2026 CCP The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published a resolution briefing for Central Counterparties (CCPs). The briefing provides practical guidance to National Resolution Authorities (NRAs) on how to operationalise the write-down and conversion of instruments tool (WDCI). Marking an important step in ESMA’s wider efforts ...
The FCA has announced 2 permanent appointments to its executive team, strengthening leadership at a pivotal time for UK and global financial markets. Simon Walls appointed executive director, marketsSimon Walls has been appointed permanent executive director, markets. Having taken on this role on a temporary basis since 2024, his appointment provides continuity at a vital and volatile time for the UK and global economy. Simon will be able to drive forward work he has already started to streng...
The FCA is reviewing how consumer investment firms support bereaved customers and whether they're getting it right. Fewer than half of bereaved customers (47%) felt they received the support they needed from financial firms, according to research (PDF).What the FCA is looking atThe review will focus on firms that advise, manage, or administer investments - including platforms, advisers and wealth managers. The FCA will examine the experience customers have from the moment the firm is told abo...
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns consumers about the company GUTEKREDIT and the services it is offering. Bafin suspects the unknown operators, who purportedly have their registered office in Ludwigsburg, Germany, of using the website gutekredit(.)com to offer loans to consumers and thus conduct banking business without the required authorisation.
The German Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns against the website satrex-kapital(.)com, which is operated under the name Satrex Kapital. The company, which claims to be based in Frankfurt am Main, offers instant access savings accounts and fixed-term deposits, as well as investment advice. Contrary to the information provided in the website’s legal notice and the contractual documents used, there is no connection whatsoever with Satrex S.A., Brussels, Belgium. This is a case of ide...
De Europese Anti-Witwasautoriteit (AMLA) heeft op 12 mei in een persbericht het definitieve eligibility reporting package gepubliceerd en kondigt aan dat zij extra data opvraagt via de nationale toezichthouders. Financiële ondernemingen onder Nederlands toezicht hoeven geen afzonderlijke rapportage volgens het AMLA-template aan te leveren. De vragen zijn geïntegreerd in bestaande vragenlijsten van de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM).
The German Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns against offers from smartlösung(.)com and the websites skysafeinvest(.)com, crypto-extrade(.)com and kryvobit(.)site. Consumers are being tricked by emails from the operators of the website smartlösung(.)com into creating supposed trading accounts on the websites mentioned and disclosing personal data. The emails claim that crypto assets are registered in the consumers’ names and that a withdrawal will be possible after verification. Th...
The German Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) warns against the websites helixapp(.)de, helix-app(.)pro, coinberg(.)eu, coinberg(.)pro, which are operated under the name Helix-A and Coinberg. It is suspected that the unknown operators are offering financial and crypto-asset services without authorisation. Consumers are being misled into investing in financial instruments such as crypto-assets. Contrary to the operators’ claims, there is no connection whatsoever with Gesellschaft für Kryp...
On 12 November 2025, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) issued an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam N.V. (Euronext) due to breach of the rules on providing access for central securities depositories (CSDs). Euronext complied with the instruction. European legislation requires trading venues to provide CSDs with access to their transaction feeds on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis. The AFM was of the opinion that a few adjustments to the settlement model that were in...
AI Analysis
AFM has issued and published an instruction against Euronext Amsterdam for breaching the **open access obligations under Article 53(1) of CSDR** by imposing restrictive conditions on CSDs’ access to its transaction feeds, linked to a new settlement model. Euronext has withdrawn the conditions and confirmed continued and new access for non‑linked CSDs, signalling that trading venues must ensure any changes to settlement models, default CSDs or connectivity rules do not directly or indirectly restrict non‑discriminatory, transparent CSD access.
What Changed
- Trading venues subject to CSDR must ensure that access for central securities depositories to transaction feeds is provided on a non‑discriminatory and transparent basis as required by Article...
Conditions or criteria attached to the designation of an alternative CSD (other than a venue’s preferred or “linked” CSD) that have the effect of limiting access to transaction feeds are treated as a...
AFM has clarified, through enforcement, that settlement model changes and associated contractual or operational conditions are within the scope of supervisory scrutiny for compliance with CSDR open...
Euronext has withdrawn three announced conditions that restricted access for certain CSDs and has confirmed continued access for CSDs with existing connectivity to its transaction feeds.
Euronext has also confirmed access for other CSDs that requested access to act as alternative CSDs, establishing a practical expectation that trading venues respond positively to reasonable access...
Suggested Considerations
Trading venues must review settlement models, CSD linkage arrangements and related policies to ensure that all conditions for CSD access to transaction feeds are non‑discriminatory, transparent, and fully aligned with Article 53(1) of CSDR.
Compliance and legal teams must identify and remove any contractual or operational provisions that directly or indirectly favour a linked or in‑house CSD over independent or alternative CSDs in terms of access to transaction feeds.
Trading venues must implement internal governance and change‑management controls to ensure that future settlement model changes, including the introduction of a preferred CSD, are subject to ex‑ante compliance review against CSDR open access obligations.
Market infrastructure firms must establish documented criteria and procedures for handling CSD access requests, ensuring these criteria are objective, transparent, and applied consistently to linked and non‑linked CSDs.
Compliance functions should conduct periodic audits of access arrangements, transaction feed connectivity, and any associated fees or technical requirements to confirm that no indirect barriers to CSD access exist.
Key Dates
12 November 2025
- AFM issues an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam for breach of CSDR Article 53(1) open access rules and sets a period for remediation
13 May 2026
- AFM publishes the instruction decision after it becomes irrevocable and confirms that Euronext has remediated by withdrawing the restrictive conditions and confirming continued and new access for CSDs
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with CSDR open access obligations can lead to formal instructions, ongoing supervisory monitoring, reputational damage through public enforcement decisions, and potentially further sanctions where breaches are not timely remediated. Given the centrality of CSD access to post‑trade infrastructure, persistent breaches may also trigger broader scrutiny of governance, conflicts of interest, and competition concerns.
European Commission launches call for candidates for the ESAs’ Board of Appeal 12 May 2026 Board of Appeal The European Commission has launched a call for expression of interest for the appointment of members to the Board of Appeal of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA – the ESAs). This call aims to establish a reserve list of qualified candidates to fill vacancies that may arise within the Board of Appeal. The reserve list will remain valid for a period of five y...
1° amending:(a) the Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, as amended;(b) the Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment, as amended;(c) the Law of 18 December 2015 on the failure of credit institutions and certain investment firms, as amended;(d) the Law of 15 March 2016 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories and amending different laws relating to financial services, as amended;2° transposing:(a) Directive (EU) 2024/1619 of th...
The FCA has banned Frank Breuer from working in UK financial services and fined him £755,000 for repeatedly acting without integrity and putting customers at risk for personal financial gain. Mr Breuer was the joint owner and sole director of Bluesky Wealth Management Limited (Bluesky), which provided advice on investments and pensions. Although authorised to advise on defined benefit (DB) pension transfers, the firm did not have the appropriate professional insurance in place from April 2019...
This report has been prepared by the SSM Network of Enforcement and Sanctions Experts to present comprehensive statistics on sanctioning activities carried out in 2025 by the ECB and the national competent authorities (NCAs) of European Union (EU) Member States participating in the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) in relation to breaches of prudential requirements.
Mensen ervaren discriminatie, ook in hun contact met banken. Banken erkennen het probleem van ervaren discriminatie in hun dienstverlening, zo blijkt uit ons onderzoek naar hoe banken discriminatie tegengaan. Deelnemende banken deelden constructief en open met ons wat zij doen om discriminatie tegen te gaan. Discriminatie is vaak een onbedoeld gevolg van processen gericht op het verminderen van risico’s, en schendt het klantbelang. De AFM verwacht van financiële ondernemingen dat zij actief (...
On 12 May 2026, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA launched the consultation on the partially revised AMLO-FINMA. The consultation will go on until 9 June 2026.
implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
MAS today announced the the appointment of Mr Ong Pang Thye to its Board of Directors. MAS also announced the re-appointment of four existing Directors, including its Chairman, Mr Gan Kim Yong and its Managing Director, Mr Chia Der Jiun.
ESMA identifies areas for further supervisory convergence on compliance and internal audit in the funds sector 11 May 2026 Audit Fund Management The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published the results of its 2025 Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on the compliance and internal audit functions of fund managers , carried out in with the participation of all EU and EEA national supervisors. The EU-wide review found that m...
Speech by Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive, at the Investment Association's Private Markets Summit 2026. Headlines are always a tough read when funds run into difficulty.And lately, the language has been stark.Some have even asked if private credit has a canary in the coal mine.That’ll make you sit up a bit straighter, won’t it?But in this moment, it’s important to remember that stress in markets is normal – and okay, as long as the system stays resilient.Private markets, done well, ca...
Kingscrown Finance Limited (Kingscrown) has stopped onboarding new customers or undertaking new business with existing customers – including extending existing credit. Kingscrown, which was incorporated in 2014, provides lending for business and investment purposes, including property investment, buy-to-let and house in multiple occupation (HMO) finance.The voluntary restrictions on Kingscrown’s business came into effect on 21 April 2026. Kingscrown has never been authorised by or registered ...
Het convenant tussen de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) en Stichting DSI over de vakbekwaamheid van beleggingsprofessionals is een efficiënt en effectief instrument binnen het risicogestuurde toezicht van de AFM. Dat is de conclusie van de audit door onderzoeksbureau KWINK groep in opdracht van de AFM. Het convenant helpt professionals in de beleggingssector aantoonbaar te voldoen aan vakbekwaamheidseisen uit Europese regelgeving. Wel komt KWINK met een aantal aanbevelingen voor verbeteri...
A convicted money launderer has been sentenced to an additional 499 daysin prison for failing to fully pay the money owed under a Confiscation Order. In 2021,RichardFaithfull,now36,wassentenced to5 years and 10 monthsin prisonfor laundering £2.5 million, following a prosecution brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).He was part of a trans-national organised crime group which laundered the proceeds of at least 7 overseas investment frauds.Mr Faithfullis required topay back £529,961,b...
Following the legal challenges to our motor finance compensation scheme, we are setting out further advice for firms and consumers. Our priorities remain to secure fair compensation for consumers as quickly as possible and ensure a healthy motor finance market.Our industry-wide scheme is the quickest, fairest and most cost-effective way to do this. As we have said, we welcome the commitment of most lenders to implement the scheme and will defend it robustly.We have summarised below the ground...
The Market Participants Group (MPG) is a senior-level forum for financial market participants to share their views on relevant themes and narratives in financial markets with members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
On 6 May 2026, Kanda Products and Services Ltd (Kanda) entered liquidation. Philip Harris and Neville Side of FRP Advisory Trading Limited have been appointed as Joint Liquidators. Kanda is authorised by the FCA as a credit broker. It operated a network of around 700 introducer appointed representatives, mainly tradespeople who introduced consumers to finance for home improvement and other goods and services.On 16 February 2026, Kanda agreed to a voluntary requirement with the FCA which restr...
The Bank's Court of Directors acts as a unitary board, setting the organisation's strategy and budget and taking key decisions on resourcing and appointments. Required to meet a minimum seven times per year, it has five executive members from the Bank and up to nine non-executive members.
Asset management The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) has approved the updated ‘Provisions’ of the AFG Code of Ethics for Third-Party Asset Management and extended these to all investment services providers
ESMA outlines enforcement activities for corporate reporting across the EEA in 2025 07 May 2026 Corporate Finance Electronic reporting Financial reporting Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published its Report on 2025 Corporate reporting enforcement and regulatory activities . The report provides an overview of how national enforcers and ESMA supervised corporate reporting across the Europea...
Introduction Good morning – I am delighted to be here, and many thanks to Brian and the BPFI for hosting us. 1 I very much look forward to the discussion, and to hearing from you all today, but before I do I would like to set out some reflections on a number of topics which are currently high on the regulatory agenda. While the discussion is multifaceted, and tied up with a regulatory cycle which has turned, an economic one which has become more challenging, not to mention a renewed focus by ...
Central Bank loan-level research shows the Irish lending market is significantly less concentrated when considering the full diversity of lenders. Robust capital and liquidity positions have served the sector well – with the evidence not supporting a lowering of overall levels of resilience on the basis of bank credit, profitability or international competitiveness. Central Banks best serve these broader objectives related to productivity and growth by delivering on their core mandates, effec...
Second Reading Speech by Mr Chee Hong Tat, Minister for National Development, and Deputy Chairman of MAS, on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, on 7 May 2026
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged 21 individuals for their alleged involvement in a decade-long insider trading scheme that used information misappropriated from multiple global law firms and resulted in millions of dollars in illicit…
ESMA consults on a new simplified approach to updating MMF stress test parameters 05 May 2026 Fund Management Simplification and Burden Reduction The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today launched a consultation on a new approach to updating the parameters for stress test scenarios under the Money Market Funds framework. ESMA proposes replacing the current annual amendments to Section 5 of the Guidelines with an annual...
ESMA promotes proportionate supervision of MiFID II sustainability requirements 06 May 2026 Investor protection The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has issued a statement presenting the results of its Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on how sustainability is integrated into firms’ suitability assessment as well as into processes and procedures for product governance. The statement highlights key themes emerging from the sup...
Following the publication of financial reporting by PayPal Holdings Inc, we can confirm we are investigating Mastercard, PayPal and Visa under Chapter I in the Competition Act 1998, and Mastercard and Visa under Chapter II in the Competition Act 1998, for suspected anti-competitive conduct linked to thefunding and usage of PayPal’s digital wallet.The FCA has reached no conclusions nor made any findings with regard to competition law having been broken.Notes to editorsThe Competition Act 1998 ...
We are launching a review of the claims management market, following concerns that consumers are being failed by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms. The review will look at the root causes of poor practices across the market, like aggressive marketing, misleading advertising and unfair exit fees. Other concerns include consumers being signed up without their consent - without clear, upfront explanations of the implications of signing up or ticking a box, for example on soci...
The Financial Action Task Force published a peer evaluation report of Singapore today, which strongly affirmed that Singapore has a robust and effective framework and process to counter money-laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.
Staff in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued guidance addressing certain questions regarding the application of the federal securities laws to pooled employer plans (PEPs), which help…
The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed rule and form amendments that would give public companies the option of filing semiannual reports in lieu of quarterly reports to meet their interim reporting obligations under the federal securities…
On 9 April 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed administrative fines totalling €90,000 on a natural person. The fines were imposed due to the person’s violation of MAR. The person in question failed to submit notifications of own account transactions.
AI Analysis
BaFin has imposed administrative fines totalling €90,000 on a natural person for breaching Article 19(1) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) by failing to submit notifications of own-account transactions in the issuer’s instruments within the prescribed deadline. This enforcement action underscores that German supervisors are actively monitoring directors’ dealings and will impose significant sanctions for seemingly “procedural” failures in managers’ transaction reporting, even where the underlying trading behaviour is not alleged to be abusive.
What Changed
- The publication reaffirms that persons discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMRs) and persons closely associated with them must notify both the issuer and BaFin of any own-account transactions...
BaFin clarifies that failure either to notify at all or to notify within the three-business-day deadline constitutes a breach of Article 19(1) MAR and may be sanctioned via administrative fines.
The publication reiterates BaFin’s fining powers for infringements of Article 19(1) MAR, up to €500,000 for natural persons and up to €1,000,000 for legal persons.
In the specific case reported, BaFin imposed administrative fines totalling €90,000, signalling a materially significant level of sanction for non‑submission of managers’ transaction notifications.
The background section restates that the issuer must publicly disclose the information contained in managers’ transaction notifications, emphasising the transparency function within the MAR regime.
Suggested Considerations
Review existing MAR Article 19 managers’ transaction policies and procedures to ensure they explicitly require notification to the issuer and BaFin within three business days of the transaction date.
Implement or enhance automated monitoring and reminder systems that track PDMR and closely associated persons’ trading and flag the three‑business‑day reporting deadline to both individuals and compliance teams.
Update internal guidance and PDMR onboarding materials to clarify the increased €50,000 annual reporting threshold effective 01 January 2026 and how to aggregate transactions across the calendar year.
Map and maintain a current register of all persons closely associated with each PDMR (including natural and legal persons) and ensure they are contractually or formally bound to comply with Article 19 MAR notification obligations.
Establish clear escalation procedures whereby any missed or late notification is immediately reported to compliance, assessed for regulatory breach, and, where appropriate, self‑reported to BaFin.
Key Dates
01 January 2026
- BaFin’s increased threshold for managers’ transaction notifications under Article 19 MAR (from €20,000 to €50,000 per calendar year) takes effect, impacting when own‑account transactions become reportable
09 April 2026
- BaFin imposes administrative fines totalling €90,000 on a natural person for failure to submit notifications of own‑account transactions in breach of Article 19(1) MAR
05 May 2026
- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website, making the sanction and underlying conduct publicly known for deterrence and transparency
07 May 2026
- The enforcement publication is modified/updated by BaFin (e.g. editorial adjustments), confirming the current version of the notice
Three business days after each transaction date (ongoing obligation)DEADLINE
- PDMRs and closely associated persons must notify the issuer and BaFin of own‑account transactions in the issuer’s securities or related instruments no later than three business days after the transaction
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with Article 19(1) MAR on managers’ transaction notifications can result in substantial administrative fines (up to €500,000 for natural persons and €1,000,000 for legal persons) and heightened supervisory scrutiny. Beyond financial penalties, failures in this area may trigger broader concerns about insider‑dealing controls and governance, potentially impacting an issuer’s regulatory risk profile and market reputation.
ESMA advances the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transactions 04 May 2026 Fund Management Market data Press Releases Securities Financing Transactions Simplification and Burden Reduction The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU financial markets regulator and supervisor, has launched a harmonised approach to funds reporting and has set a clear path towards streamlined, more efficient transaction reporting across European markets. The two reports pu...
On 7 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 50.000 euros on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG
AI Analysis
The Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz – BfJ) has imposed a disciplinary fine of 50,000 euros on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG for failing to file its 2024 consolidated financial statements electronically with the operator of the German Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger), in breach of section 325 HGB, with the sanction based on section 335 HGB. This enforcement action underscores that German disclosure rules on publication of annual and consolidated accounts are actively enforced and that failures to file with the Bundesanzeiger can lead to material monetary sanctions and repeated measures against issuers already in scope of BaFin transparency proceedings.
What Changed
- The case confirms the continued strict enforcement by the Federal Office of Justice of section 325 HGB requirements that consolidated accounting documents be submitted to the Bundesanzeiger in...
The decision illustrates the application of section 335 HGB, including the possibility of imposing disciplinary fines of up to 50,000 euros for non-compliance with disclosure obligations relating to...
The publication reinforces that failure to submit consolidated financial statements for a given financial year (here, 2024) for disclosure purposes constitutes a breach regardless of any parallel...
The case signals that the BfJ will proceed to final sanction where the company does not appeal the disciplinary fine order, and that lack of appeal results in a binding enforcement outcome.
The enforcement adds to a pattern of repeated transparency/reporting violations by the same issuer, highlighting regulators’ willingness to sanction persistent non-compliance with both HGB corporate...
Suggested Considerations
Review and map all statutory disclosure obligations under sections 325 to 335 HGB, including deadlines and format requirements for the submission of annual and consolidated financial statements to the Bundesanzeiger.
Establish or enhance internal controls to ensure that consolidated accounting documents for each financial year are prepared, approved and submitted electronically to the Bundesanzeiger within the one-year deadline from the balance sheet date.
Implement a compliance calendar that explicitly tracks HGB disclosure deadlines alongside WpHG financial reporting and publication obligations (annual reports, half-yearly reports, and related announcements) to avoid gaps between corporate and capital markets requirements.
Assign clear responsibility to specific senior managers or functions (e.g. CFO, Head of Accounting, Company Secretary) for timely Bundesanzeiger filings and ensure these responsibilities are reflected in role descriptions and governance documentation.
Conduct a gap analysis of prior years’ disclosures to confirm that all required annual and consolidated financial statements have been properly filed with the Bundesanzeiger and publicly available; remediate any missing filings without delay.
Key Dates
18 October 2023
- BaFin imposes administrative fines totalling 331,500 euros on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG for multiple failures to publish and announce financial reports under sections 114 and 115 WpHG for financial years 2021 and 2022
Financial year 2024 (yearDEADLINE
end date: company-specific); - Statutory deadline under section 325 HGB for submission of consolidated accounting documents to the Bundesanzeiger is generally no later than one year after the balance sheet date of the financial year to which they relate
7 November 2025
- The Federal Office of Justice issues a disciplinary fine order of 50,000 euros against ZhongDe Waste Technology AG for failure to submit consolidated financial statements for financial year 2024 to the Bundesanzeiger in electronic form
04 May 2026
- BaFin publishes the enforcement measure, disclosing the disciplinary fine imposed by the Federal Office of Justice and the underlying breach of sections 325 and 335 HGB
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with HGB disclosure obligations can result in substantial monetary disciplinary fines up to 50,000 euros per breach under section 335 HGB and repeated sanctions, and may expose management to personal liability and reputational damage. For issuers already under scrutiny for WpHG reporting failures, further HGB breaches materially increase enforcement risk and may affect relationships with investors, lenders and trading venues.
Three people have been arrested as part of a crackdown on suspected illegal financial promotions. Two homes in the Chelmsford and Romford areas were searched, as part of an operation led by the FCA and the Eastern Regional Special Operations Unit (ERSOU), a specialist policing unit that tackles serious and organised crime.Adverts from firms that aren't FCA-regulated can be a warning sign of a scam. If something goes wrong, these firms aren't covered by the rules that protect people's money – ...
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) publiziert.
Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung der Liste der sanktionierten natürlichen Personen, Unternehmen und Organisationen der Verordnung vom 21. März 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Organisationen, die mit den Taliban in Verbindung stehen (SR 946.231.07), publiziert.
Our objective has been, and remains, to ensure consumers receive fair compensation as quickly as possible and to maintain a healthy motor finance market. An industry-wide scheme is the fastest, simplest route for consumers and the most efficient way for firms to put things right and give certainty to their investors. Alternative approaches would be slower and much more costly for firms.We engaged widely in designing the scheme. While being clear not everyone would get everything they would li...
I was in Washington for the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) two weeks ago and this week I was in Frankfurt at the latest meeting of the ECB Governing Council, to decide interest rates to achieve our price stability target of 2 per cent inflation over the medium term. I wanted to use this blog to offer some reflections on both meetings. Inevitably the war in the Middle East cast a shadow over both meetings. Uncertainty about the global outlook dominated the discourse: ...
The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.
Around 800,000 Dutch households have sufficient financial resources to invest but do not do so, even though they may face financial shortfalls in the future. For this group, it may therefore be appropriate to allow their available assets to generate higher returns, in order to strengthen their future financial position. The AFM is committed to lowering the barriers for consumers who want to start investing.
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has adopted a decision regarding the deferred publication of the volume of certain transactions in Dutch sovereign bonds. Pursuant to this decision, which enters into force on 4 May 2026, market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make public the volume of individual transactions in sovereign bonds with an amount between €15 million and €50 million no later than the close of the trading day.