Consultations

Key dates

2026-08-26

EBA consultation launched and consultation period opened.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Deadline to register for the EBA virtual public hearing, at 16:00 CEST.

2026-09-29

EBA virtual public hearing from 10:00 to 12:00 CEST (Paris time).

2026-12-31 Deadline

Deadline for submitting consultation responses to the EBA, at 23:59 CEST.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and operational-risk teams should obtain and map the consultation draft against Article 323(1), points (a) to (h), of the CRR and identify requirements that would require changes to policies, committee mandates, controls or management information.
• Institutions should determine their business indicator and assess whether it is below the proposed EUR 750 million proportionality threshold, while treating that threshold as proposed rather than final.
• Firms should inventory operational-risk data sources, loss-event thresholds, taxonomies, reporting processes, validation controls and audit coverage, and assess whether data granularity is sufficient for the proposed framework.
• Management-body and senior-management responsibilities should be compared with existing governance arrangements, including the independence, authority and resourcing of the operational risk management function.
• Firms should assess alignment between the proposed RTS, CRR3 operational-risk capital and reporting implementation, the EBA Guidelines on internal governance and DORA, avoiding duplication or gaps for ICT-related risk.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting comments to the EBA by 31 December 2026; compliance teams may wish to coordinate responses with risk, finance, internal audit and industry associations.
• Stakeholders wishing to participate in the EBA public hearing should register by 25 September 2026 at 16:00 CEST and prepare questions on proportionality, data granularity, thresholds, reporting frequency and implementation timing.
• Institutions should monitor the EBA’s final draft, the European Commission’s endorsement process and the eventual application date before treating the consultation text as a binding requirement.

What changed

The proposed RTS would give detailed effect to Article 323(1), points (a) to (h), of the CRR by requiring three framework components: governance arrangements, an operational risk management process and an operational risk assessment system. They clarify responsibilities of the management body, senior management and the independent operational risk management function, and address operational risk data and taxonomy, the business indicator component, reporting, validation and audit. ICT risk requirements are intended to remain governed primarily by Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA).

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

Key dates

2026-08-25

EBA launched the consultation on three draft RTS.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Deadline at 16:00 CEST to register for the EBA virtual public hearing.

2026-09-30

EBA virtual public hearing scheduled from 10:00 CEST.

2026-11-25 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments on the consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their solo and group-level asset populations capture all entities and activities covered by the CRD amendments, including the potential effect of EU branches and consolidated group assets.
• Compliance and finance teams may wish to reconcile the proposed threshold methodology against regulatory reporting, audited financial statements and internal management information, using a rolling 12-month monitoring process where relevant.
• Investment firms above EUR 5 billion should review the draft reporting templates and instructions and identify data, governance, validation and submission gaps before the RTS become applicable.
• Firms near the EUR 30 billion threshold should model the consequences of credit institution authorisation, including CRD and CRR application, supervisory engagement, capital and liquidity requirements, governance expectations and implementation timelines.
• Groups potentially affected by the group test should consider submitting comments on the geographic scope of assets, treatment of branches, consolidation methodology and any disproportionate effects on cross-border business models.
• Potentially eligible firms may wish to prepare evidence against the proposed waiver factors and engage early with their competent authority, while recognising that a waiver is discretionary and not guaranteed.
• Stakeholders wishing to participate in the EBA public hearing should register by the stated registration deadline and firms wishing to influence the final RTS should submit consultation responses by 25 November 2026.

What changed

The EBA is revising its draft RTS following the 2024 amendments to the Capital Requirements Directive, including clarifications on which entities and assets must be included in the threshold calculation at solo and group level. The package addresses the methodology for calculating total assets against the EUR 30 billion threshold, reporting requirements for investment firms whose total assets exceed EUR 5 billion under Article 55(5) of the Investment Firms Regulation, and the factors competent authorities must consider when deciding whether to grant a waiver under Article 8a(7) of the CRD.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each pool’s investor eligibility against the natural-person and non-natural-person requirements in proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), including the distinctions between qualified eligible persons and accredited investors.
• RIAs should review offering documents, subscription procedures, investor representations, and transfer controls to support the required reasonable belief at investment or conversion that all participants satisfy the applicable eligibility criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that each relevant pool’s interests qualify for a Securities Act exemption and that U.S. marketing practices comply with the proposed restriction, including the Rule 506(c) exception.
• Eligible advisers should map Form PF obligations and determine whether existing SEC filings would satisfy the proposed condition that Form PF be filed where required.
• Firms should prepare to file or update electronic exemption notices with the NFA and maintain the proposed Regulation 4.13 annual affirmation, recordkeeping, disclosure, and statutory-disqualification representations.
• Managers operating both registered and exempt pools should assess the proposed Regulation 4.13(e)(2) communications and redemption-right requirements and identify whether any existing participants would require notice before a pool is operated as exempt.
• Small-pool operators should model eligibility using the proposed $800,000 aggregate threshold while continuing to monitor the 15-participant-per-pool limit and unchanged contribution exclusions.
• Managers relying on Staff Letter 25-50 should preserve evidence of current compliance and evaluate transition implications because the CFTC preliminarily proposes to supersede that relief if the rule is finalized.

What changed

Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would exempt an SEC-registered investment adviser from CPO registration for qualifying pools if the pool interests are exempt from Securities Act registration and are not publicly marketed in the United States, except that the marketing restriction would not apply to pools offered under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D.

Key dates

2026-08-20

CFTC announced and published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking amendments to Regulation 37.3(a)(2).

Suggested considerations

• SEFs should assess which listed products and transaction categories are permitted transactions under Regulation 37.9(c)(1), distinguishing them from swaps subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement.
• SEFs should consider whether to submit comments within 30 days after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, including evidence on order-book usage, execution quality, liquidity, market transparency, and operational costs.
• SEFs should review their rulebooks, execution protocols, product listings, disclosures, surveillance coverage, and client documentation to determine what changes would be needed if the proposal is finalized.
• SEFs relying on the CFTC’s existing no-action relief should confirm the relief’s scope and conditions and maintain controls ensuring that required transactions continue to satisfy applicable execution requirements.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other market participants should identify whether counterparties or venues may discontinue order-book functionality for permitted transactions and evaluate impacts on liquidity access, best execution or execution-quality processes, recordkeeping, and internal trading procedures.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the actual publication date, comment deadline, final-rule date, and any changes to the proposed effective date; the August 20, 2026 press release does not itself establish the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposed rule would remove the Regulation 37.3(a)(2) requirement for an SEF to offer an order book for permitted transactions. A permitted transaction is defined in Regulation 37.9(c)(1) as a transaction that does not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement; such transactions are not required to be executed on an SEF or designated contract market and may use any execution method offered by the SEF.

Key dates

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its earlier interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework and opened the process for public comment, subject to publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map planned and existing token offerings against the proposed $5 million four-year and $75 million 12-month thresholds, including aggregation across related issuers, affiliates, projects and offering periods once the proposing release is reviewed.
• Issuers should consider documenting which exemption they would use, the relevant measurement period, investor eligibility and transfer restrictions, and controls intended to prevent exceeding the applicable offering cap.
• Firms should consider preparing draft principles-based narrative disclosures and, for the $75 million exemption, assessing financial-statement readiness and the systems needed for ongoing SEC reporting.
• Project sponsors may wish to inventory all essential managerial efforts represented or promised to investors and establish evidence, governance approvals and public communications supporting any future safe-harbor position based on completion or permanent cessation of those efforts.
• Exchanges, broker-dealers and trading platforms should consider assessing how the proposed safe harbor and state-law preemption could affect asset classification, listing reviews, customer disclosures, surveillance, custody and secondary-market controls.
• Industry participants may wish to review the full proposing release and consider submitting comments within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register; the specific deadline should not be assumed until the Federal Register publication date is confirmed.
• Firms should continue treating the proposal as non-final and should not represent that an exemption, safe harbor or state-law preemption is currently available.

What changed

The proposed framework would add two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration requirements for qualifying investment contracts involving crypto assets. The first would allow aggregate offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period on a one-time basis; the second would allow offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Issuers relying on either exemption would need to make specified principles-based narrative disclosures available to investors.

Key dates

2026-08-18

ESMA launched the consultation on draft EMIR RTS and ITS for annual reporting of clearing activity at recognised third-country CCPs.

2026-10-12 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to provide feedback on the reporting framework, templates and format.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to submit comments on the proposed framework, templates and reporting format by 2026-10-12.
• Firms should consider identifying every recognised third-country CCP used by their EU entities and distinguishing direct clearing-member activity from client clearing activity.
• Reporting owners may wish to map the proposed Article 7d data points to existing EMIR Article 9 transaction reporting, margin, collateral, default-fund and treasury or payments data to determine what can be reused and what new data controls are needed.
• Groups should consider determining whether reporting will be performed by each EU entity or by the EU parent undertaking on a consolidated basis.
• Firms may wish to assess data availability by asset class and Union currency, calculation methodologies for annual average cleared values, and controls for margins, default-fund contributions and largest payment obligations.
• Technology and regulatory-reporting teams should consider designing provisional data lineage, reconciliation and governance processes, while treating implementation dates and final fields as subject to the final RTS and ITS.
• Firms should monitor ESMA’s Final Report and the subsequent adoption, endorsement and publication of the technical standards before treating the proposed reporting model as a final operative obligation.

What changed

This is a consultation rather than a final binding rule. ESMA proposes the reporting framework, templates and format required under EMIR 3 Article 7d for clearing members and clients that clear transactions through recognised third-country CCPs. Firms established in the EU and not part of an EU-consolidated-supervision group would report to their competent authority; where the firm belongs to such a group, the EU parent undertaking would report on a consolidated basis.

Key dates

2026-08-18

CFTC announced publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning amendments to Part 4 CPO and CTA registration requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review the full Federal Register proposal, including the precise sophisticated-investor criteria, pool-level conditions, adviser eligibility requirements, proposed small-pool capital threshold, effective date, and transition provisions.
• Firms should consider mapping each existing and prospective pool against the proposed CPO exemption conditions and each advisory mandate against the proposed CTA exemption conditions, without treating the proposal as currently available relief.
• SEC-registered advisers may wish to compare the proposed exemption with their current CFTC registration status, CFTC Regulation 4.13 or 4.14 filings, Rule 4.7 reliance, and any applicable CFTC staff no-action relief.
• Small-pool operators should consider recalculating eligibility using the proposed inflation-adjusted capital-contribution threshold once the precise amount is published and assessing whether existing offering, subscription, and compliance controls would continue to demonstrate compliance.
• Affected firms may wish to assess whether to submit comments within 45 days after Federal Register publication, particularly on investor definitions, treatment of derivatives and swaps, aggregation rules, recordkeeping, reporting, and coordination with SEC adviser requirements.
• Firms relying on existing exemptions or no-action letters should continue meeting their current conditions and filing obligations unless and until a final rule or separate relief changes them.
• Legal and regulatory inventories may be updated to cross-reference CFTC Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, and 4.14, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What changed

The CFTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to Part 4. The proposal would add a CPO registration exemption for certain investment advisers registered with the SEC in connection with commodity pools whose participants are limited to specified sophisticated investors and that satisfy additional conditions set out in the proposal. It would add a related CTA registration exemption. It would also increase the capital-contribution threshold applicable to the existing small commodity pool exemption under CFTC Regulation 4.13 to account for inflation.

Key dates

2026-08-12

Federal Register publication of the proposed rule at 91 FR 52114

2026-10-13 Deadline

Comments due on the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposed changes against current CRA policies, exam procedures, public file practices, and community development grant approval workflows.
• Institutions may wish to assess how the proposed asset-size thresholds would change their CRA category and associated data collection, reporting, and evaluation obligations.
• Banks making grants or donations may wish to review documentation standards for recipient use of funds, overhead limits, and evidentiary support needed for CRA consideration.
• Community development and CRA governance teams may wish to identify which activities would still qualify under the revised CD definitions and performance tests.
• Legal and regulatory affairs functions may wish to prepare comments on the proposed lending focus, grant criteria, sunshine requirements, and technical changes to OCC public welfare and corporate activity rules.
• Banks subject to CRA-related agreements may wish to verify whether the proposed technical amendments would affect disclosure timing, content, or filing processes.

What changed

['The proposal would amend the OCC and FDIC Community Reinvestment Act rules to make substantive, technical, and process-oriented changes aimed at refocusing the statutory objective on meeting community credit needs and reducing burden, particularly for community banks.', 'The agencies propose to better ensure that community development grants reach intended communities and to provide greater clarity on how to obtain CRA consideration for activities.', 'The OCC and FDIC also propose technical changes to their CRA sunshine rules under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which govern disclosure...

Key dates

2026-06-10

FSB published the consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

2026-07-22 Deadline

Deadline for written comments on the consultation report

2026-08-06

FSB published the public responses to the consultation

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation responses to identify supervisory themes and likely refinements to the final FSB report.
• Firms considering or already using AI may wish to map their current governance, risk, and lifecycle controls against the FSB’s 12 proposed sound practices.
• Risk and model governance teams may wish to assess whether their controls address generative AI, agentic AI, and third-party or technology dependencies in a way that aligns with the consultation’s focus.
• Public policy and regulatory affairs functions may wish to track the final report once published, as it may influence national supervisory expectations even if it remains non-binding soft law.

What changed

The publication makes available the written public comments received on the FSB’s consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The underlying consultation proposed a menu of 12 sound practices for financial institutions to apply across organisation-wide AI governance and the full AI lifecycle, including emerging forms such as generative AI and agentic AI.

Key dates

2026-08-06

FDIC published the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal must be received by the FDIC

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current insider-lending policies against the proposed $400,000 and $2,000,000 thresholds to assess operational impact if finalized.
• Firms may wish to review board-approval workflows and escalation triggers so systems can be updated quickly if the proposal is adopted.
• Institutions may wish to evaluate whether existing exception reporting, insider tracking, and credit administration procedures will need revision to reflect periodic indexing rather than fixed thresholds.
• Commenters may wish to submit feedback by the October 5, 2026 comment deadline if the proposed thresholds or indexing methodology would create implementation issues.

What changed

The proposal amends 12 CFR 337.3 for extensions of credit to insiders of FDIC-supervised institutions. It would increase the threshold for certain extensions of credit to executive officers not otherwise specifically authorized by statute from $100,000 to $400,000, and it would increase the threshold for extensions of credit to insiders requiring prior approval by the board of directors from $500,000 to $2,000,000. The FDIC also proposes to establish an indexing methodology to periodically update those dollar thresholds over time.

Key dates

2026-08-06

CFTC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50926.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposal must be received by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current affiliate structures involving FCMs, SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and trading affiliates to identify where the proposal would create new disclosure, surveillance, or conflict-management obligations.
• Firms may wish to map any shared personnel, technology, office space, or information flows between affiliated entities and assess whether additional controls would be needed to protect regulatory impartiality.
• Market-regulation and legal teams may wish to assess whether existing board, committee, and disciplinary-panel processes would satisfy the proposed independence and conflict-management expectations.
• FCMs may wish to inventory current disclosures to customers and counterparties and determine whether additional affiliate-relationship disclosures would be needed if the rule is finalized.
• Affected entities may wish to prepare comment letters before the 2026-10-05 deadline if they want to influence the final scope of the proposal.

What changed

The proposal would amend CFTC regulations in Parts 1, 37, 38, and 39, including regulations 1.52 and 1.55, to strengthen oversight of affiliated entities. For FCMs, it would add requirements around disclosure of affiliate relationships with SEFs, DCMs, or DCOs, and it would adjust SRO and DSRO financial-surveillance requirements for affiliate FCMs.

Key dates

2026-03-01

EBA central validation function for pro forma initial margin models under EMIR became operational

2026-08-05

Publication date of the EBA consultation on the reporting framework for validation and monitoring of ISDA SIMM

2026-11-02 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on ISDA SIMM reporting

2026-12-31

Indicative target for EBA adoption of a Decision establishing the collection of relevant information for ISDA SIMM validation reporting by end of 2026

2027-03-31

Expected release of the final EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2, incorporating the new reporting requirements

2027-12-31

Expected first reporting reference date for ISDA SIMM-related information under the new framework

2028-03-31

Expected first quarter of 2028 window for collection of initial ISDA SIMM validation and monitoring data based on the December 2027 reference date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation paper, IMMV reporting instructions and templates to understand the proposed data fields, frequency and proportional thresholds for ISDA SIMM-related reporting under EMIR.
• Firms using or planning to use ISDA SIMM for non-centrally cleared OTC derivative initial margin calculations should consider whether they will fall under the more intensive or lighter reporting category based on the significance of their OTC trading activity and assess system readiness for the expected December 2027 reference date reporting in Q1 2028.
• Risk and collateral management functions may wish to map the proposed reporting requirements to existing SIMM backtesting, model performance, risk factor sensitivity and margin monitoring processes to identify gaps and necessary enhancements.
• Regulatory reporting and IT teams should consider planning for integration of the new IMMV reporting templates into their infrastructure, taking into account the incorporation of these requirements into the EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2 and the planned final technical release in March 2027.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to assess the implications of Article 11(12a) EMIR and EMIR 3 for their use of pro forma initial margin models, including governance around EBA’s central validation function and associated fee obligations, and prepare internal feedback on the consultation by the 2 November 2026 deadline.
• Firms intending to rely on ISDA SIMM should consider engaging with the consultation process to comment on the proportionality of the proposed reporting frequency and content, especially where OTC trading activity is limited but compliance costs could be significant.
• Supervisory liaison teams at affected groups may wish to coordinate with competent authorities to understand how the EBA’s data collection will be used in authorisation and ongoing supervision of ISDA SIMM-based initial margin models.

What changed

The consultation sets out a proposed standardised reporting framework for counterparties seeking validation to use ISDA SIMM as a pro forma initial margin model under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3). From 1 March 2026, the EBA acts as the central validator of the elements and general aspects of pro forma initial margin models pursuant to Article 11(12a) EMIR, and this proposal defines the information that must be submitted on a regular basis to enable validation and ongoing performance monitoring.

Key dates

2026-08-05

OCC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (91 FR 50610)

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes for the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map which internal records fall into the proposed CSI category and compare current disclosure controls against the new exceptions and safeguard requirements.
• Supervised entities may wish to review any confidentiality agreements and onward-sharing practices to determine whether they would satisfy the proposed conditions for permitted CSI disclosures.
• Legal and FOIA teams may wish to update request-handling workflows for expedited processing requests, fee-waiver appeals, and request tracking once the rule is finalized.
• Banks and other recipients of OCC information may wish to reassess litigation, government-reporting, and interaffiliate sharing procedures to ensure they align with the revised disclosure framework.
• Firms may wish to submit comments by the close of the comment period if the proposed CSI scope, disclosure exceptions, or FOIA procedures would affect their supervisory, legal, or records-management processes.

What changed

The proposal would restructure the OCC’s information-disclosure rules in 12 CFR part 4 and make conforming changes in parts 5, 7, 21, and 163. It would create a new subcategory of non-public OCC information called confidential supervisory information (CSI), clarify when supervised entities and other recipients may disclose CSI without prior OCC approval, and require applicable safeguards and, in some cases, qualifying confidentiality agreements. The OCC also proposes to permit certain disclosures of CSI in limited circumstances to support business efficiency, government accountability, and...

Key dates

2026-08-04

Federal Reserve published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 49526.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule are due.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposal’s threshold changes against existing Regulation O controls, including board-approval triggers, disclosure triggers, and internal lending limit checks.
• Firms may wish to identify any lending relationships that rely on current presumptions of control, especially where portfolio companies of investment fund complexes could be affected.
• Banks may wish to review insider-lending policies, forms, recordkeeping, and disclosure workflows for provisions that the proposal would codify, clarify, or remove.
• Stakeholders may wish to submit comments by 2026-10-05 if they want to influence the final treatment of thresholds, fund-complex ownership, valuation rules, or correspondent-lending provisions.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to compare the proposed text against existing Regulation O, Regulation Y, and internal interpretive guidance to spot implementation impacts if the rule is finalized largely as proposed.

What changed

The proposal would amend 12 CFR part 215 (Regulation O) and conform related provisions in Regulation Y and other Board regulations. It would make a one-time adjustment to several dollar-based thresholds, then index those thresholds going forward based on nominal GDP. It would clarify how certain limits apply on an aggregate basis and streamline limits on loans to executive officers, including prior board-approval requirements for certain large loans.

Key dates

2026-08-04

Publication of the Federal Reserve Board notice of proposed rulemaking ‘Regulatory Modernization and Relief for Mutual Holding Companies’ in the Federal Register (91 FR 49490; FR Doc. 2026-15774) amending Regulations Q (12 CFR part 217) and MM (12 CFR part 239).

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment deadline for submitting responses to the Federal Reserve Board on the proposed amendments to Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at mutual holding companies and savings and loan holding companies may wish to review the proposed amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), particularly the sections on dividend waivers, mutual-to-stock conversion processes, post-conversion restrictions, chartering requirements for subsidiary holding companies, and updated model charters and bylaws, to assess operational and governance impacts.
• Firms planning or contemplating mutual-to-stock conversions should consider comparing their current conversion documentation, use of FR MM-PS, FR MM-OC and FR MM-OF forms, and liquidation account methodologies with the proposed streamlined forms, corrected liquidation account calculations, and revised rules on stock pricing, repurchases, offers and sales, employee stock ownership plan financing and benefit plans.
• Institutions that issue, or are considering issuing, mutual capital certificates should review the proposed Appendices B and C to Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) to evaluate whether their existing or planned instrument terms align with the model key terms for qualification as Common Equity Tier 1 or Additional Tier 1 capital, including permanence, loss-absorption, distributions and redemption features.
• Subsidiary holding companies of thrift mutual holding companies may wish to analyze the proposed elimination of the federal charter requirement and related changes to Subpart C of Regulation MM to determine chartering options, corporate structure implications, and any needed updates to organizational documents and regulatory commitments.
• Governance and legal teams at MHCs could review the proposed revisions to membership rights, proxy processes, postal mail requirements, voluntary dissolution, and the model charter and bylaws in Appendices A, C and D to Regulation MM, with a view to aligning internal policies and corporate governance frameworks with the modernized regime once finalized.
• Risk and capital management functions at bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and state member banks should consider evaluating capital planning assumptions and buffers in light of the clarified eligibility of mutual capital instruments as regulatory capital under Regulation Q, and identify any systems or reporting changes that may be required if the proposal is adopted.
• All affected firms may wish to prepare internal impact assessments and, where appropriate, draft comment letters addressing specific elements of Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26), including any perceived risks around conflicts of interest, reduced accountability, or adjustment costs noted in the economic analysis.
• Compliance monitoring teams should plan to track the rulemaking through the comment close date and subsequent Federal Reserve actions so that, if the proposal is finalized, implementation plans can be developed for policy updates, staff training and revisions to regulatory reporting and capital instrument documentation.

What changed

The NPR proposes targeted amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) governing mutual holding companies (MHCs), including eliminating certain dividend waiver requirements that currently apply to MHCs and their subsidiary holding companies, and revising post-conversion restrictions to reduce burdens following mutual-to-stock conversions.

Key dates

2026-08-03

OCC issued Bulletin 2026-37 announcing the proposed rulemaking on availability of OCC information

2026-10-02 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after publication, based on the OCC’s stated deadline formula in the related rulemaking notice

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current controls for handling nonpublic OCC information and identify where internal policies reference the existing 12 CFR part 4 subparts B and C.
• Firms may wish to assess whether any current or planned disclosures of supervisory materials could fall within the proposed expanded exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, or supervisory coordination.
• Banks may wish to inventory records that could qualify as aged CSI once the final rule is issued, so they can update retention and disclosure procedures accordingly.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to monitor the final rule and any comment-driven changes to the proposed FOIA expedited-processing and fee-waiver appeal procedures.
• Institutions may wish to align employee training with the OCC’s clarified position on unauthorized disclosure and potential criminal referral exposure.

What changed

The proposal would amend the OCC’s disclosure framework in 12 CFR 4 by creating a new subcategory of nonpublic OCC information called confidential supervisory information (CSI). It would modify the prior-approval regime for supervised entities that want to disclose CSI by expanding exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, and supervisory coordination, while adding safeguards around those exceptions. The OCC also proposes to provide for the release of certain aged CSI, which would create a time-based disclosure concept not described in the current rule.

Key dates

2026-08-03

OCC issued the notice of proposed rulemaking

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register

2026-08-05

Federal Register publication date of the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current internal controls for handling OCC nonpublic information and map where the proposed CSI category could affect disclosure workflows.
• Firms may wish to assess whether existing information-sharing arrangements with government agencies or service providers would fit within the proposed exceptions and safeguards.
• Teams responsible for FOIA or public records requests may wish to update procedures for expedited processing requests and any related appeal handling.
• Banks and supervised entities may wish to submit comments on operational burden, safeguards, and the practical impact of the proposed disclosure exceptions before the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposal would make structural and substantive changes to the OCC’s disclosure framework in 12 CFR part 4. According to the OCC, it would create a new nonpublic information category called confidential supervisory information (CSI), modify the prior-approval framework for supervised entities that want to disclose CSI, and add tailored exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, and supervisory coordination, subject to safeguards.

Key dates

03 August 2026

- ESAs publish the Final Report and draft RTS proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 to simplify bilateral margin requirements for counterparties below the EUR 8 billion initial margin threshold

TBD (European Commission adoption)

- The European Commission reviews and, if satisfied, endorses the draft RTS amending the EMIR bilateral margin Delegated Regulation; exact date to be set by the Commission’s internal process

TBD (European Parliament and Council scrutiny)

- Following Commission endorsement, the RTS are subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council under the standard RTS procedure before publication in the Official Journal

TBD (Entry into force – OJ publication + 20 days)

- The amended RTS enter into force on the date specified in the Official Journal (typically 20 days after publication), from which firms can legally apply the new exemption regime

TBD (Three years after entry into force) Deadline

- By the date three years after entry into force, the ESAs must complete a review of the application and impact of the exemption from initial margin requirements in Article 28(1), potentially informing further changes

Suggested considerations

• Map all EMIR in-scope entities within the group and identify those whose AANA of non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives is close to or below the EUR 8 billion threshold, to assess which relationships may benefit from the expanded exemption.
• Review current collateral and margin frameworks to identify legacy contracts where initial margin is still being exchanged solely because the regime requires continuation despite the counterparty having fallen below the EUR 8 billion threshold.
• Prepare an internal policy update so that, once the RTS enter into force, initial margin requirements are switched off for counterparties below the EUR 8 billion threshold on both new and existing uncleared OTC derivatives, subject to group risk appetite.
• Update EMIR margin procedures and AANA calculation processes to ensure accurate annual determination of whether each counterparty is above or below the EUR 8 billion threshold, including documentation of the March–May calculation methodology.
• Review and amend collateral agreements, credit support annexes (CSAs) and associated legal documentation to incorporate the revised treatment for below-threshold counterparties, including terms for stopping margin exchange and potentially releasing segregated collateral.

What changed

• - Counterparties whose average aggregate notional amount (AANA) of non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives falls below the EUR 8 billion threshold will no longer be required to exchange initial margin...
• The current framework, under which below-threshold counterparties are exempt from initial margin for new trades but must continue to exchange initial margin for pre-existing “legacy” contracts, will...
• Article 28(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 will be amended to explicitly extend the exemption from initial margin requirements to outstanding contracts where one of the two counterparties...
• The RTS introduce a clearer operational framework for entry into and exit from the initial margin regime based on the annual AANA calculation for March–May, including scenarios where one or both...
• Once a counterparty falls below the EUR 8 billion threshold under the revised rules, firms will be permitted to terminate related initial margin processes, including ceasing ongoing calculation,...

Key dates

2026-08-03

ESAs publish final report and draft RTS proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 bilateral margin requirements

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current EMIR margin frameworks and inventories of uncleared OTC derivatives to identify portfolios and counterparties that are below the €8 billion initial margin threshold and could be affected by the proposed phase-out of initial margin exchange.
• Risk and collateral management functions should consider assessing the operational processes, documentation and systems currently used to calculate, call and exchange initial margin on legacy uncleared OTC derivative contracts, to understand the potential impact of a removal of these obligations on collateral flows and counterparty risk management.
• Legal and documentation teams may wish to map existing credit support annexes (CSAs) and collateral agreements to EMIR margin requirements, evaluating whether standard terms referencing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 would need amendment if the RTS are endorsed and the obligation to exchange initial margin for below-threshold portfolios is removed.
• Regulatory affairs and policy teams should consider monitoring the European Commission’s endorsement process and subsequent scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council, tracking any changes to the draft RTS text that could affect scope, thresholds or transitional arrangements.
• Firms subject to EMIR in multiple jurisdictions may wish to compare the proposed EU treatment of below-threshold initial margin portfolios with requirements in other key jurisdictions (e.g. US, UK) to ensure consistent cross-border collateral and margin policies and avoid regulatory arbitrage or misalignment.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare briefing materials for senior management and boards outlining the anticipated simplification and burden reduction, alongside any residual risks or supervisory expectations that could accompany the phase-out of initial margin for below-threshold counterparties.

What changed

Under the current EU bilateral margin framework in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251, counterparties with an aggregate average notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives below the €8 billion initial margin threshold specified in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) are exempt from exchanging initial margin on new uncleared OTC derivative contracts, but must continue to exchange initial margin on existing contracts.

Key dates

2026-07-31

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

OCC and FDIC issued the joint proposal amending CRA rules

2026-10-01 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board requested comment on the proposed Regulation O modernization

2026-10-05 Deadline

Expected comment deadline stated in the Federal Register notice

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

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

2026-08-04

Federal Register publication date referenced in the available materials.

2026-10-05 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

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

2026-09-30 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the DPM 2.1 public consultation

2023-06-01

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

2024-03-01

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / 2027)

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

TBD (mid‑2026) Deadline

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

30 July 2026

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

TBD (60 days after Federal Register publication)

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

11 September 2026

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

31 December 2026 Deadline

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

01 January 2027

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-25

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

2026-07-08

CME NYMEX self-certified a 24/7 oil contract

2026-07-09

CFTC stayed the self-certified 24/7 oil contract

2026-07-28

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

2026-08-26 Deadline

Extended comment deadline for the request for comment

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-24

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

2026-08-24 Deadline

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

2026-09-30

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

2026-12-31

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

2027-03-31

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

2027-12-31

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-25

FinCEN published the underlying NPRM to amend the Huione Group definition

2026-06-25

Electronic comment filing became unavailable due to a portal issue

2026-06-30

Portal issue period ended after six days of blocked electronic filing

2026-07-22

FinCEN dated the comment-period extension notice

2026-07-24

Federal Register publication of the extension notice at 91 FR 46761

2026-08-02 Deadline

Extended deadline for written comments on the NPRM

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

22 June 2026

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

26 July 2026 Deadline

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

26 August 2026 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-23

EBA launches consultations on draft ITS on depositor information, ITS on information exchange, RTS on DGS payouts of client funds deposits, and Guidelines on investment of available financial means under DGSD3

2026-09-21 Deadline

Registration deadline (12:00 CEST) for public hearing on all four regulatory products

2026-09-24

Public hearing on the four DGSD3-related regulatory products (10:00–13:00 CEST)

2026-10-23 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the four consultation papers

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions should consider reviewing existing depositor information sheets, account-opening documentation and ongoing communications to assess alignment with the emerging harmonised formats and content envisaged by the draft ITS on depositor information, particularly for merger and failure scenarios.
• DGSs and banks may wish to map current data flows and reporting processes for covered deposits, available financial means and bank failure events against the proposed ITS on information exchange, to identify gaps in data granularity, timeliness, and standardisation that could require system and process changes.
• Firms that hold client funds in pooled or intermediary deposit accounts (such as investment firms or payment institutions) should consider analysing how client identification and segregation data are captured and shared with DGSs, in light of the draft RTS on client funds that aim to ensure accurate and timely reimbursement of underlying clients and avoidance of duplicate payouts.
• DGS operators and finance teams may wish to review investment policies, risk limits, eligible instruments and liquidity management frameworks for DGS financial means, to anticipate adjustments needed to comply with the forthcoming Guidelines on diversification, low risk and liquidity, including readiness to support resolution financing within the DGSD3 mandate.
• All affected stakeholders should consider preparing internal positions and impact assessments and submit consultation responses to the EBA by the stated deadline, highlighting operational challenges, data availability issues, and any potential conflicts with existing national frameworks for depositor protection and crisis management.
• Risk and treasury functions in banks may wish to engage with DGSs and supervisors to understand how enhanced reporting on covered deposits and DGS financial means under the ITS on information exchange could affect crisis-preparedness expectations, stress-testing assumptions and disclosure practices.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider monitoring the progression of these four draft instruments alongside the remaining eight technical standards and guidelines mandated by DGSD3, to plan for a coordinated implementation programme once final texts and application dates are confirmed.

What changed

The publication launches consultations on four draft regulatory products mandated by DGSD3: (i) Implementing Technical Standards on depositor information, which define harmonised content and format for depositor information sheets at account opening and on a regular basis, and specify communication requirements in special situations such as bank mergers or failures; (ii) Implementing Technical Standards on information exchange between credit institutions, Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGSs) and other relevant authorities, introducing standardised procedures, templates and minimum information...

Key dates

TBD (following consultation responses, expected late 2026 or later)

- The final Policy Statement would be published, and the proposals would take effect on publication

22 October 2026

- The consultation closes

Suggested considerations

• Firms planning a Part VIII transfer should map their transaction timetable against the PRA’s proposed step-by-step process and identify where the revised guidance may affect sequencing.
• Firms should assess whether their proposed transaction could qualify for a waiver of the transferee member vote and prepare supporting rationale and evidence accordingly.
• Firms should determine early whether the PRA is likely to expect an independent actuary’s report and build that workstream into the transaction plan.
• Firms should confirm whether the proposal applies to their structure, including whether they are a friendly society or another type of firm within scope.
• Firms and advisers should review current transaction playbooks and board papers to align them with the PRA’s stated approach before the consultation closes.

What changed

• - The PRA proposes to set out a typical sequence of steps firms would follow when undertaking a Part VIII transfer.
• The PRA proposes to provide greater transparency on its decision-making considerations for Part VIII transactions.
• The PRA proposes to explain when it may waive the requirement for a member vote by the transferee.
• The PRA proposes to explain when it may require an independent actuary’s report.
• The PRA proposes to clarify the scope of applicability of the process for both friendly societies and non-friendly-society firms.

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / early 2027)

– Expected PRA policy statement and finalised amendments to the Statement of Policy on insurance business transfers, following consultation feedback (exact date not specified in the CP)

Early July 2026

– PRA publishes CP12/26 “Insurance friendly societies, amalgamations and transfers”, launching the consultation on proposed codified guidance and Statement of Policy amendments

Suggested considerations

• Map all current and planned amalgamations or transfers involving friendly societies against the proposed five‑part process (planning, analysis, member engagement and votes, application/notifications/representations, confirmation meetings) and identify procedural and evidential gaps.
• Review internal policies, governance frameworks, and transaction playbooks for friendly society restructurings to ensure they reflect the PRA’s codified expectations under Part VIII of the Friendly Societies Act 1992, including early regulatory engagement and documentation standards.
• Develop or enhance internal guidance for actuaries and finance teams on the required actuarial analysis for Part VIII transfers, ensuring the ability to evidence that preclusion grounds are not met and that the transaction is in the interests of members and policyholders.
• Implement procedures to identify all classes of members and policyholders affected by proposed amalgamations or transfers, assess whether their existing terms and conditions are preserved or materially changed, and document the implications for benefit levels and distribution.
• For partial transfers, establish a formal framework to assess and document how the interests of members remaining with the transferor society are considered, including any continuing obligations, capital support, and benefit expectations.

What changed

• - The PRA proposes a more detailed, codified description of the end‑to‑end Part VIII process for friendly society amalgamations and transfers, organised into stages such as planning and preparation,...
• The PRA intends to update and integrate its Statement of Policy on insurance business transfers to explicitly cover friendly society amalgamations and transfers under the Friendly Societies Act 1992,...
• For transfers, the PRA sets out circumstances in which it may exercise its statutory discretion to dispense with the requirement for the transferee friendly society to hold a member vote, subject to...
• The PRA proposes to clarify when it may direct the transferor and/or transferee to appoint an independent actuary to report on the proposed transfer’s effects on members and policyholders, including...
• Firms undertaking a Part VIII transfer will be expected to provide robust actuarial analysis and supporting evidence demonstrating that statutory preclusion grounds are not met and that the transfer...

Key dates

22 July 2026

– AFM/AMF joint press release and position paper “From design to delivery – five enablers for effective European supervision” published, formally articulating the five enablers for centralised EU‑level supervision under the MISP

TBD (MISP legislative timeline)

– Specific dates for adoption and phased implementation of the Market Integration and Supervision Package will follow the EU legislative process; firms should anticipate a multi‑year transition with key milestones likely aligned to ESMA governance and funding reforms and initial scopes of direct supervision

Suggested considerations

• Review and update the firm’s supervisory engagement strategy to include structured, proactive engagement with ESMA (not just NCAs), anticipating more direct interactions, thematic reviews, and data requests at EU level.
• Assess current risk‑assessment and risk‑reporting frameworks to ensure they are compatible with a risk‑based and adaptive supervisory approach, including the ability to demonstrate how your firm identifies, measures, and mitigates emerging risks and new business models.
• Conduct a gap analysis of data architecture and regulatory reporting, focusing on data quality, standardisation, and ability to feed into centralised EU data hubs; plan upgrades to systems, controls, and data governance to support ESMA‑level data centralisation.
• Prepare for potential changes in supervisory levies and funding, by modelling the impact of EU‑level ESMA fees in addition to national contributions and incorporating them into medium‑term budgeting and pricing strategies.
• Review governance arrangements, including board oversight, senior management responsibilities, and internal escalation processes, to ensure they can meet higher expectations of independent, transparent, and accountable governance under an ESMA‑centric model.

What changed

• - ESMA is explicitly positioned as the central supervisory authority for selected capital‑markets activities, with national competent authorities (NCAs) expected to operate within a more formalised...
• Supervisory objectives are reframed towards risk‑based and adaptive supervision, meaning firms should expect more differentiated supervisory intensity based on risk profile, business model, and...
• The paper supports proportionate and transparent funding for ESMA, indicating a future where firms may be subject to EU‑level supervisory levies or fee structures in addition to national regimes,...
• AFM and AMF call for independent, transparent, and accountable EU‑level supervisory governance, foreshadowing changes to ESMA’s decision‑making bodies, oversight processes, and accountability...
• Data centralisation is identified as a core enabler, implying a stronger move towards EU‑wide data hubs, harmonised reporting formats, and central access for ESMA to transaction, position, and...

Key dates

2026-07-21

SEC proposed Regulation E-Delivery and published the proposal in the Federal Register

2026-09-21 Deadline

Comment period closes

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all information currently delivered under an opt-in electronic delivery framework and map it to the proposed covered information categories.
• Firms may wish to assess whether their current customer or client communications systems can support a direct-delivery model and a statement-of-availability model, including website hosting and link accuracy controls.
• Operational teams may wish to review whether they can generate and track the proposed transition notices for recipients currently receiving paper delivery.
• Firms may wish to evaluate how they will handle paper-copy requests, opt-outs, and updates to electronic address records if the proposal is adopted.
• Proxy and fund operations teams may wish to identify rule-specific processes that would need revision if Rule 30e-3 is rescinded and the proxy/tender offer amendments are finalized.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare comment letters focused on definitions, PFI handling, remediation obligations, and the transition process before the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposal would create a new Part 303 in the SEC rules for “Regulation E-Delivery: Delivering Covered Information Through Electronic Delivery.” It would define key concepts such as electronic delivery, electronic address, covered entity, covered information, and covered recipient, and would set conditions for when information may be delivered directly electronically versus when a statement of availability must be used.

Key dates

2007

– Original Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD I) adopted, establishing a basic EU framework for shareholder rights in listed companies

2017

– Revised Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD II) adopted, introducing measures to promote long‑term engagement, improve governance transparency and regulate exercise of shareholder rights, particularly at general meetings

20 July 2026

– AMF publishes its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the SRD review, setting out its expectations and proposals on harmonisation, meeting formats and shareholder engagement

Suggested considerations

• Monitor the European Commission’s SRD review process closely, including the forthcoming legislative proposal and any related impact assessments, as these will determine concrete new obligations on meeting formats, shareholder identification and intermediaries’ duties.
• Map current practices for general meetings (physical, hybrid, virtual‑only) against the AMF’s positions and SRD II requirements, and assess the extent to which existing procedures depend on national options or flexibilities that may be removed in a revised SRD.
• For intermediaries and custodians, assess existing cross‑border voting, information transmission and shareholder identification processes to identify areas of fragmentation or reliance on local practices that may be affected by EU‑level harmonisation.
• Engage with industry associations and local regulators to provide practical feedback on operational challenges (e.g. complex custody chains, vote confirmation, cut‑off times) so that future SRD revisions reflect realistic implementation constraints.
• Update internal regulatory change logs and risk assessments to flag the SRD review as an emerging structural change to shareholder‑rights processes, with potential impacts on IT systems, contracts with intermediaries, and investor communications.

What changed

• * The AMF advocates removal of many existing “Member State options” in SRD in order to achieve greater harmonisation of shareholder rights and issuer–shareholder interactions across the EU, reducing...
• The AMF reiterates that long‑term shareholder engagement should remain a core objective of the revised SRD and that the framework should explicitly facilitate ongoing dialogue between issuers and...
• The AMF supports the development of hybrid general meetings with real‑time remote voting as a structural feature of EU listed company governance, in line with the digitalisation of the economy and...
• The AMF considers “closed‑door” general meetings (with no in‑person or remote shareholder participation) to be incompatible with SRD objectives and proposes that such formats be prohibited in the...
• The AMF proposes that “virtual‑only” general meetings should remain possible but be subject to tighter regulation at EU level, including a requirement to obtain shareholders’ approval on a regular...

Key dates

2026-07-17

EBA published the final draft RTS and ITS on material acquisitions, material transfers, mergers and divisions under the CRD

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map proposed acquisition, transfer, merger, and division workflows against the draft minimum-information template and identify which data points are already held by competent authorities.
• Firms may wish to review whether planned intra-group transactions could qualify for the simplified treatment described in the draft RTS, including any discretion not to assess certain transactions.
• Groups planning mergers or divisions may wish to check which documentation can be reused from Company Law Directive processes and where CRD-specific supplements will still be needed.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to assess how multiple-notification scenarios are handled today and whether internal controls need to align with the proposed harmonised terminology and coordination timelines.
• Firms may wish to prepare for supervisory coordination across jurisdictions by identifying the authorities likely to be involved in cross-border transactions and the likely sequence of notifications.

What changed

The EBA’s final draft RTS would specify the minimum information to be provided for material acquisitions, material transfers of assets and liabilities, mergers, and divisions, together with a common assessment methodology for the prudential scrutiny of those transactions. The draft RTS also streamline notifications by excluding information already held by competent authorities and by allowing reliance on documentation prepared under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (the Company Law Directive) for mergers and divisions.

Key dates

2026-07-17

EBA launches consultation on amendments to ITS for the 2027 market risk benchmarking exercise

2026-07-27 Deadline

Deadline (16:00 CEST) for registration to the public hearing on the consultation

2026-07-28

Public hearing on the consultation (14:00–15:30 CEST)

2026-09-03 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on the 2027 market risk benchmarking ITS amendments

2027-01-01

Application date of the European Commission’s FRTB Delegated Act referenced in the amended ITS

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions using market risk internal models or the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach may wish to review the consultation paper and annexes (booking instructions, relevant dates, instruments and portfolios, template instructions, and templates) to understand proposed changes to the 2027 benchmarking data collection and reporting requirements.
• Firms applying or planning to apply CRR2 Internal Model Approach for market risk should consider the implications of the resumption of CRR2-IMA data collection and assess whether existing reporting processes and systems can be reactivated or need updating to meet the revised ITS templates.
• Institutions intending to use the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach for market risk may wish to assess the impact of being newly in scope of the EBA market risk benchmarking exercise, including internal governance, data availability, and operational readiness for participation in the second half of 2027.
• Firms that anticipate using the CRR3 Alternative Internal Model Approach may wish to monitor the postponement of AIMA data collection and evaluate how the uncertainty in the effective implementation date interacts with their internal model development timelines and supervisory expectations.
• Regulatory and reporting functions may wish to map current market risk reporting templates to the proposed reorganised and rationalised templates, identifying data gaps and system changes required once the final ITS enter into force.
• Compliance teams may wish to coordinate with risk and reporting teams to prepare a response to the EBA consultation by the 3 September 2026 deadline, particularly on practical aspects of template design, data availability, and timing of the 2027 benchmarking exercise.
• Institutions newly included in scope by virtue of using CRR3 ASA should consider whether additional internal documentation, model validation, and supervisory engagement are needed ahead of the second-half 2027 benchmarking exercise, given the EBA’s intention to adopt the final ITS earlier to give such institutions more preparation time.

What changed

The consultation proposes amendments to the ITS on supervisory benchmarking of market risk models for the 2027 exercise, updating the data collection framework and reporting templates used by institutions and competent authorities under Article 78 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD). The scope of the market risk benchmarking exercise would be expanded to include institutions applying the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach (ASA) for market risk, irrespective of whether they also use an Internal Model Approach (IMA).

Key dates

2026-07-16

SEC proposed Regulation E-Delivery

2026-09-21 Deadline

Public comments due on the proposal

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all current delivery obligations to determine which documents would qualify as 'covered information' under the proposal.
• Firms may wish to review whether their records reliably capture valid electronic addresses for intended recipients.
• Firms may wish to assess how they would evidence the required prominent disclosure and opt-out status before relying on electronic delivery.
• Firms may wish to identify communications containing personal financial information and evaluate whether those items would need a statement-of-availability approach rather than direct electronic delivery.
• Firms may wish to plan for paper-notice and transition workflows for recipients currently receiving paper delivery.
• Firms may wish to review affected proxy, tender offer, fund reporting, Form CRS, and Form ADV processes for operational and disclosure changes if the proposal is finalized.

What changed

The proposal would create a new, cross-cutting framework under the federal securities laws for electronic delivery of 'covered information' by 'covered entities.' Under the proposal, electronic delivery could satisfy delivery obligations without prior affirmative consent if the recipient has provided an electronic address, has received prominent disclosure that information will be sent electronically, and has not opted out.

Key dates

2026-07-16

SEC issued the proposal for Regulation E-Delivery

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date for the proposing release

2026-09-21 Deadline

Deadline for public comments on the proposal

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map which current disclosures could move to electronic delivery under the proposed framework.
• Firms may wish to assess whether their client and investor records reliably capture valid electronic addresses and opt-out status.
• Operations teams may wish to review how to generate the two required paper transition notices for recipients currently in paper delivery.
• Firms may wish to evaluate whether existing website, authentication, and delivery controls could support the proposed delivery methods, especially for materials containing personal financial information.
• Regulatory teams may wish to prepare comment letters before the SEC’s comment deadline.
• Firms may wish to inventory downstream rule changes needed if the SEC finalizes conforming amendments to proxy and tender-offer delivery rules.

What changed

The proposal would create a new Regulation E-Delivery framework under which covered entities could deliver covered information electronically without first obtaining affirmative consent, provided specified conditions are met. The SEC says the rule would apply broadly across federal securities laws and cover issuers, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and others, including materials such as prospectuses, fund annual and semi-annual shareholder reports, proxy statements, trade confirmations, Form CRS disclosures, and Form ADV Part 2 brochures.

Key dates

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Start of the 60‑day public comment period on the Regulation E‑Delivery proposal

TBD Deadline

– End of the 60‑day comment period; market participants must have submitted feedback on scope, conditions, investor protections and operational impacts by this date

TBD (post‑adoption) Deadline

– Effective date of final Regulation E‑Delivery, after which firms may begin relying on the rule for default e‑delivery, subject to any specified compliance or phase‑in dates in the adopting release

TBD (post‑effective date) Deadline

– Commencement of required transition processes, including the mailing of two paper notices and implementation of opt‑out mechanisms, for investors currently receiving paper communications

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all documents currently delivered under federal securities law requirements (prospectuses, shareholder reports, proxy materials, trade confirmations, Form CRS, Form ADV brochures) and determine how each will be delivered under Regulation E‑Delivery.
• Review and update disclosure, investor communication and delivery policies to incorporate e‑delivery as the default method while clearly documenting investor rights to request and receive paper delivery at any time.
• Design and implement procedures for maintaining accurate electronic contact information for investors and clients, including periodic verification processes and remediation steps for undeliverable emails or failed electronic transmissions.
• Develop and operationalize the transition process for paper‑based recipients, including generation and mailing of the two required paper notices that explain the move to e‑delivery and the opt‑out option.
• Update client and investor onboarding materials, account agreements and preference‑capture workflows to reflect the new default e‑delivery model and how investors can elect paper delivery or change their preferences.

What changed

• - Regulation E‑Delivery would formally replace the SEC’s decades‑old, purely guidance‑based approach to electronic delivery and establish a rule‑based framework that expressly permits e‑delivery to...
• Electronic delivery would become the default method of delivery, meaning firms could deliver required regulatory information electronically without first obtaining the investor’s affirmative consent,...
• The rule would preserve investor choice by requiring that investors and other recipients be able to request paper delivery at any time and continue receiving paper format upon request.
• The proposal would set out requirements and conditions for when e‑delivery is deemed compliant, including use of electronic addresses or other electronic methods reasonably designed to ensure receipt...
• The range of deliverable documents under Regulation E‑Delivery would be broad, covering prospectuses for funds and other issuers, fund annual and semi‑annual shareholder reports, proxy statements,...

Key dates

Summer 2026

– PRA and FCA consultations expected to be issued on detailed rules for the new UK captive insurance regime

16 June 2026

– PRA speech by Shoib Khan outlining policy approach, boundaries of captive activity, and expectation of a consultation in summer 2026

14 October 2026

– Consultation closing date for responses to the PRA/FCA captive regime proposals

Summer 2027

– Target **launch of the new captive insurance regime**, following consideration of consultation feedback and finalisation of PRA/FCA rules and guidance

Mid‑2027

– Consistent target implementation window indicated in government and regulator communications for the new captive framework to become operational

Suggested considerations

• Assess whether existing or planned group risk‑financing strategies would benefit from establishing a UK single‑parent captive under the proposed regime and document the strategic rationale.
• Map current and planned intra‑group insurance and reinsurance arrangements, including any employee benefits‑related policies, to confirm which risks can be written directly and which must only be written on a reinsurance basis.
• Engage early with internal stakeholders (risk, treasury, legal, tax, and senior management) to determine preferred captive structures (standalone vs future PCC) and governance arrangements aligned with PRA expectations.
• Prepare to participate in the PRA and FCA consultations by drafting detailed, technical responses on authorisation processes, capital methodologies, reporting templates, and conduct requirements for captives.
• Review existing Solvency UK and Consumer Duty compliance frameworks and identify which elements would no longer apply to captives under the proposed regime, while ensuring that any remaining protections and safeguards are maintained where appropriate.