Capital Markets & Trading

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,...

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.

Key Dates

References

• [1] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/joint-rts-amendments-...
• [2] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esas_2019_20_-...
• [3] esma.europa.eu/document/emir-rts-various-amendments-bilat...
• [4] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2026-08/ESA_2026_07_Fi...
• [5] esma.europa.eu/press-news/consultations
• [6] ashurst.com/en/insights/financial-services-speedread-4-au...
• [7] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esas-publish-joint-qa...
• [8] sip.lex.pl/komentarze-i-publikacje/poradniki/sprawozdanie...

What Changed

• - The EDMC now has a new Chair (Nicholas Segal) and Deputy Chair (Peter King), replacing Sir William Blair and Philip Marsden whose terms ended in July 2026.
• The appointments are the outcome of an external recruitment process commenced in October 2025, aligned with the EDMC’s governance framework and five‑year renewable term structure.
• The scope of the EDMC’s remit continues to cover contested enforcement decisions across the Bank’s statutory regimes: Prudential Regulation, Financial Market Infrastructures, Resolution,...
• The EDMC Procedures, published in January 2024, remain the operative framework for how contested enforcement cases are handled, including panel constitution, hearing processes, and decision‑making...
• The EDMC continues to operate with functional separation from investigation teams and the Bank’s executive, preserving independence in contested enforcement decisions.

Suggested Considerations

• Map all existing and potential enforcement exposures to the EDMC’s statutory remit, covering prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties and notes issuance.
• Review internal enforcement‑response playbooks to ensure they explicitly recognise the EDMC’s independent role and the January 2024 EDMC Procedures, including how contested cases will be heard and decided.
• Update board and senior management briefings on BoE/PRA enforcement to reflect the change in EDMC leadership and likely implications for contested case strategy and settlement versus contest decisions.
• Assess ongoing and anticipated enforcement matters for which the firm might contemplate contesting; incorporate the EDMC’s composition and procedures into litigation and regulatory strategy planning.
• Train Legal, Compliance and relevant business teams on the practical implications of the EDMC Procedures (panel size, hearing processes, written and oral representations, decision timelines) with scenario‑based exercises for contested cases.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/202...
• [2] finreg.aoshearman.com/Bank-of-England-Establishes-Enforce...
• [3] 3vb.com/sir-william-blair-appointed-chair-of-bank-of-engl...
• [4] bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/court-of-directors/gover...
• [5] mondovisione.com/media-and-resources/news/bank-of-england...
• [6] elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
• [7] talents.studysmarter.co.uk/companies/the-bank-of-england/...
• [8] treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-04/rbnz-rev-ban...

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...

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.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9274-26
• [2] reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=30...
• [3] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Dodd-FrankProposedRul...
• [4] comments.cftc.gov/FederalRegister/Proposed.aspx?Type=List...
• [5] public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-28745.pdf
• [6] content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/If6afd4b4...
• [7] public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-00935.pdf?1329...
• [8] cftclaw.com

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

References

• [1] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Massnahmen/40c...
• [2] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Angebotsunterlage/Leo_In...
• [3] bafin.de/EN/home_node_en.html
• [4] northdata.com/Leo%20International%20Precision%20Health%20...
• [5] finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2026-03/68026196-leo-int...
• [6] globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/05/22/3300302/0/en/le...
• [7] globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/06/12/3311244/0/en/le...

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

References

• [1] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [2] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [3] amf-france.org/en/sujets/sanctions-settlements
• [4] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/publications/reports-...
• [5] financemagnates.com/forex/amf-fines-a-financial-investmen...
• [6] pideeco.be/regwatch/la-commission-des-sanctions-de-lamf-s...
• [7] amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/pdf/56719/en/A_...
• [8] finascope.fr/english/communiques/

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

References

• [1] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announce...
• [2] fxnewsgroup.com/tag/luk-fook/
• [3] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/api/circular/list-content/ci...
• [4] charltonslaw.com/legal/newsletters/574/sfc-enforcement-ac...
• [5] davispolk.com/insights/client-update/hong-kong-sfc-calls-...
• [6] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/circular/intermed...
• [7] sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/IS/publications/Cybersecurity-the...
• [8] reuters.com/legal/litigation/hong-kong-securities-regulat...

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

References

• [1] caproasia.com/2023/08/24/hong-kong-sfc-fines-china-indust...
• [2] sfc.hk/en/Regulatory-functions/Enforcement/Disciplinary-p...
• [3] sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/COM/Reports/Enforcement-Reporter_...

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

References

• [1] sfc.hk/web/files/ER/PDF/14PR93_statement.pdf
• [2] webb-site.com/codocs/SFC041125b.pdf
• [3] webb-site.com/codocs/SFC051024.pdf
• [4] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/api/news/list-content?refNo=...
• [5] financemagnates.com/forex/regulation/hong-kong-listed-bro...
• [6] prudent.hk/post/sfc-issues-restriction-notice-to-a-broker...
• [7] sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/LSD/Gazette/GN-2652-of-2025-Eng.p...
• [8] sfc.hk/en/Regulatory-functions/Enforcement/Disciplinary-p...

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

References

• [1] webb-site.com/codocs/SFC060328.pdf
• [2] kucoin.com/news/flash/hong-kong-sfc-fines-victory-securit...
• [3] sfc.hk/en/Regulatory-functions/Enforcement/Disciplinary-p...
• [4] www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/gem/2018/0716/gln201...
• [5] sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/COM/QR-Reports/202110-12/2eEnforc...
• [6] chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/353041
• [7] sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/COM/Reports/Enforcement-Reporter_...

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,...

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.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9271-26
• [2] dentonscrypto.com/cftc-issues-staff-advisory-setting-expe...
• [3] bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-21/cftc-seeks-input-o...
• [4] bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-23/cftc-seeks-input-o...
• [5] wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/pub...
• [6] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/04/the-us-cftc-lo...
• [7] complianceconcourse.willkie.com/articles/cftc-releases-pr...
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/cftc-advances-framework-for-perpetu...

What Changed

• - The Central Bank of Ireland has formally designated “Russell Administration Limited (CLONE)” as an unauthorised investment firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement)...
• The warning confirms that Russell Administration Limited (CLONE) is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland, and that there is no connection between this clone entity and the...
• The Central Bank has publicly disclosed specific identifiers for the unauthorised firm (website, email address, and phone number) to assist firms and consumers in recognising and blocking fraudulent...
• The notice reiterates that firms and individuals can report suspected unauthorised or clone firms directly to the Central Bank via designated telephone contact points.
• By publishing the warning, the Central Bank reinforces its policy that operating as an investment firm in Ireland without appropriate authorisation is unlawful and subject to supervisory and...

Suggested Considerations

• Verify that your firm’s name, contact details, and regulatory authorisation information have not been cloned or misused by Russell Administration Limited (CLONE) or other similar entities, and escalate any evidence of impersonation to the Central Bank and local law enforcement.
• Update client-facing communications, including website fraud alerts and investor letters, to warn about clone firms and specifically list known identifiers (such as the Russell Administration Limited (CLONE) website, email address, and phone number) where relevant to your client base.
• Instruct front-office, call centre, and relationship management staff to advise clients to check the Central Bank Registers and unauthorised firms list before engaging with any entity claiming to be regulated in Ireland, and to report any suspicious contact immediately.
• Review and strengthen internal financial crime and fraud detection controls to include explicit screening for clone firm indicators, such as mismatched contact details, unregistered domains, and requests to transfer funds to newly introduced counterparties.
• Incorporate the Russell Administration Limited (CLONE) warning and similar Central Bank warning notices into your firm’s ongoing financial crime risk assessments and customer risk profiling, particularly for high-risk investment products and cross-border services.

Key Dates

References

• [1] centralbank.ie/regulation/how-we-regulate/authorisation/u...
• [2] service.betterregulation.com/document/30388
• [3] centralbank.ie/regulation/industry-market-sectors/securit...
• [4] fi.ee/sites/default/files/2025-08/Loan%20365%20(Clone)%20...
• [5] linkedin.com/posts/central-bank-of-ireland_central-bank-o...
• [6] registers.centralbank.ie
• [7] edit.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/fina...

What Changed

• - BaFin reiterates that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin when their voting rights in an issuer reach, exceed, or fall below specified thresholds, in line with sections 33 et seq.
• The publication confirms that the notification must be made within four trading days from the triggering event (i.e. crossing of a relevant voting rights threshold).
• BaFin highlights that failure to notify, or to notify within the prescribed four‑trading‑day period, constitutes an administrative offence under the WpHG.
• The notice confirms that BaFin can impose administrative fines on natural persons for breaches of the voting rights notification obligation up to a statutory maximum of €2 million.
• The case illustrates BaFin’s willingness to impose multiple fines for multiple notification failures arising from separate threshold crossings or reporting obligations within a given period.

Suggested Considerations

• Map all shareholdings in German‑listed issuers (including derivatives and instruments conferring voting rights) against the WpHG notification thresholds and maintain a central register of current and potential reportable positions.
• Implement or enhance automated monitoring tools and internal controls to detect in real time when voting rights in a German‑listed issuer are about to reach, exceed, or fall below a threshold, triggering a four‑trading‑day notification period.
• Establish a clear, documented procedure for preparing and submitting voting rights notifications to both the issuer and BaFin, including responsible owners, escalation paths, and backup arrangements for absences or system outages.
• Review and update internal policies, shareholder disclosure manuals, and client onboarding documentation to explicitly reflect the four‑trading‑day deadline and the requirement to notify both the issuer and BaFin when thresholds are crossed.
• Train front‑office, trading, corporate actions, and legal/compliance staff (including those outside Germany) on German voting rights notification rules, focusing on threshold levels, calculation principles (including aggregation across entities and instruments), and timelines.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...
• [2] bafin.de/EN/Aufsicht/BoersenMaerkte/Emittentenleitfaden/M...
• [3] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...
• [4] bafin.de/EN/Aufsicht/BoersenMaerkte/Emittentenleitfaden/M...
• [5] solutions-atlantic.com/germany-bafin-sets-fine-for-substa...
• [6] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Fachartikel/20...
• [7] noerr.com/en/insights/payment-service-providers'-reportin...
• [8] resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/cloud-complian...

What Changed

• - Credit institutions and investment firms are no longer permitted to accept payments, fees, commissions or non‑monetary benefits from third parties (e.g.
• The prohibition applies to the forwarding of both retail and professional client orders and covers any form of economic benefit linked to routing orders to a specific counterparty or venue.
• Germany’s previous use of the MiFIR national exemption for domestic clients has ended; there is no longer any national carve‑out for PFOF in relation to clients resident or established in Germany.
• BaFin’s supervisory statement specifies how firms must interpret and apply the EU‑level PFOF ban in practice, including alignment with ESMA’s interpretative decisions on the scope of prohibited...
• The stated regulatory objective is to improve the quality of client order execution and prevent conflicts of interest arising from execution venues or market makers incentivising brokers to route...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and map all current remuneration streams linked to order routing, including explicit PFOF arrangements, volume‑based rebates, and other benefits from market makers or venues, and cease any arrangements that constitute PFOF or similar third‑party inducements for forwarding orders.
• Review and update MiFID II / MiFIR inducement policies to explicitly classify PFOF and similar execution‑related rebates as prohibited benefits, ensuring no reliance on inducement disclosure or quality‑enhancement arguments to justify them.
• Amend best‑execution policies and procedures to remove any consideration of third‑party payments from venues or market makers in the execution‑venue selection process and to emphasise price, cost, speed, likelihood of execution, and other MiFID II best‑execution factors.
• Conduct a conflicts‑of‑interest assessment to identify any residual incentives or arrangements that could compromise the duty to act in the best interests of clients in order routing, and implement mitigation measures or remove such conflicts where necessary.
• Redesign pricing and revenue models for neobroker and low‑fee brokerage services to replace PFOF‑funded “zero‑commission” offerings with compliant alternatives, such as explicit commissions, spreads, subscription fees, or other transparent charges.

Key Dates

References

• [1] lrz.legal/de/lrz/eu-regulierung-von-neubrokern
• [2] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Aufsichtsmitte...
• [3] asscompact.de/nachrichten/bafin-positioniert-sich-zum-ges...
• [4] neuebanken.de/pfof-verbot-2026-neobroker/
• [5] onvista.de/news/2025/12-29-bye-bye-payment-for-order-flow...
• [6] dasinvestment.com/bafin-will-neobrokern-auf-den-zahn-fueh...
• [7] dasinvestment.com/payment-for-orderflow-verbot-neobroker-...
• [8] boersen-zeitung.de/english/neobrokers-brace-for-end-of-pa...

What Changed

• - CSSF Circular 21/783, which applied ESMA’s Guidelines on MiFID II/MiFIR obligations on market data in Luxembourg, will cease to be applicable as of 23 August 2026 and is formally classified as...
• The supervisory reference framework for market data obligations in Luxembourg shifts from ESMA soft-law Guidelines to binding regulatory technical standards contained in Commission Delegated...
• Requirements on making market data available to the public on a “reasonable commercial basis” are now set out in directly applicable EU law, including detailed RTS criteria on cost-based pricing,...
• ESMA’s interpretative role via Guidelines is replaced by binding RTS, which reduces reliance on national circulars and increases harmonisation of market data rules across EU trading venues and data...
• Luxembourg firms can no longer rely on Circular 21/783 as the primary interpretative document for market data obligations; instead, their compliance frameworks must directly reference Delegated...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and catalogue all internal policies, procedures, contractual templates, and pricing frameworks that reference CSSF Circular 21/783 or ESMA’s MiFID II/MiFIR market data Guidelines.
• Review Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156 in detail and map its RTS requirements (e.g. cost-based pricing, non-discriminatory access, data unbundling, publication formats) against current market data practices.
• Update market data pricing policies to ensure that fees are demonstrably based on reasonable commercial basis criteria defined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156, including documentation of cost allocation and margin methodology.
• Revise market data access policies and client terms to ensure non‑discriminatory conditions and appropriate unbundling of pre‑trade and post‑trade data, in line with the RTS.
• Amend compliance manuals, MiFID/MiFIR control frameworks, and training materials to remove references to CSSF Circular 21/783 and ESMA Guidelines, replacing them with references to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/cssf21_783eng.pdf
• [2] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/cssf21_790_eng.pdf
• [3] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/cssf21_782eng.pdf
• [4] pwc.lu/en/newsletter/2026/cssf-circular-25-901.html
• [5] dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2024/4/new-cssf-circular-on...

What Changed

• - The SEC has formally announced that Principal Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement Sam Waldon will leave the agency effective 31 July 2026, ending more than 14 years of service at the SEC.
• The Enforcement Division will have a new Principal Deputy Director (named in the release), who will assume responsibility for overseeing day‑to‑day enforcement operations, supervision of regional and...
• Waldon’s departure follows his recent tenure as Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director during a period of strategic restructuring of the Enforcement Division, including creation of multiple...
• The transition occurs against the backdrop of earlier Commission decisions to rescind delegation of formal order authority to the Enforcement Director, returning formal order approvals to the...
• Under Waldon’s leadership, the Division emphasized “quality over quantity” cases, focusing on traditional “core” areas (insider trading, accounting and disclosure fraud, market manipulation,...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update enforcement‑risk assessments to reflect the forthcoming change in SEC Enforcement Division Principal Deputy Director, with particular focus on core fraud, insider trading, and accounting‑related risks.
• Re‑evaluate internal investigation, Wells process, and SEC engagement protocols to ensure they align with current Enforcement Manual practices and anticipate any refinements under the new Principal Deputy Director.
• Brief senior management, boards, and audit committees on the SEC enforcement leadership transition and its implications for prioritization of accounting, disclosure, and gatekeeper cases, particularly in light of the SOX‑focused enforcement unit.
• Reassess crypto and digital asset exposure, including ongoing or threatened SEC matters, to account for potential shifts in enforcement posture under new leadership while maintaining preparedness for fraud‑focused actions involving retail investors.
• Reinforce insider trading surveillance, market‑abuse monitoring, and controls around material non‑public information, reflecting the Enforcement Division’s continued emphasis on traditional trading‑related misconduct.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-20/sec-lays-out-polic...
• [2] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-162
• [3] angelinvestorsnetwork.com/regulatory-compliance/sec-enfor...
• [4] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-27-sec-announces-enf...
• [5] reuters.com/world/us/sec-focus-traditional-cases-under-ne...
• [6] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/04/sec-speaks-are...
• [7] morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/04/securities-enforcement-round...
• [8] ainvest.com/news/sec-enforcement-inflection-point-directo...

What Changed

• - BaFin has formally confirmed an enforcement action where late or missing voting rights notifications under sections 33 et seq.
• The publication reiterates that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below certain statutory thresholds in...
• BaFin explicitly links failures to notify or late notifications to administrative offences under the WpHG, with potential fines for legal persons of up to €10 million or up to 5% of total turnover,...
• The communication reflects BaFin’s continued focus on the proper functioning and attractiveness of EU capital markets, framing voting rights notification compliance as a core transparency tool rather...
• The case signals that BaFin is prepared to sanction non‑German firms (such as US‑based Brown Capital Management LLC) when their holdings in German issuers trigger WpHG thresholds and the resulting...

Suggested Considerations

• Map all portfolios and mandates to identify direct and indirect holdings of shares and related instruments in German issuers subject to WpHG voting rights notification rules.
• Implement or enhance an automated monitoring tool that aggregates positions at group level (including funds, managed accounts and derivatives) and flags when WpHG thresholds are approached or crossed.
• Review and document internal procedures to ensure that notifications to affected issuers and to BaFin are drafted, approved and submitted within the four‑trading‑day statutory deadline.
• Ensure that legal and compliance teams fully understand the WpHG threshold framework (including initial thresholds and subsequent incremental thresholds, and attribution rules) and maintain up‑to‑date written guidance and checklists.
• Establish a clear allocation of responsibilities between portfolio management, trading, operations, legal and compliance for detecting threshold crossings and preparing notification forms.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Massnahmen/40c...
• [2] fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/bafin-fines-brown-c...
• [3] bafin.de/EN/Aufsicht/BoersenMaerkte/Emittentenleitfaden/M...
• [4] bafin.de/EN/home_node_en.html
• [5] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...
• [6] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Fachartikel/20...
• [7] fintrx.com/firms/firm/brown-capital-management-llc-105633

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...

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.

Key Dates

References

• [1] afm.nl/en/sector/themas/over-het-toezicht-en-beleid-van-d...
• [2] amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/private/2025-01...
• [3] amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/private/2025-01...
• [4] afm.nl/~/profmedia/files/publicaties/2021/position-paper-...
• [5] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/amfs-eu-positions/fre...
• [6] loyensloeff.com/insights/news--events/news/looking-ahead-...
• [7] elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/002/2011/204/a...
• [8] regulationtomorrow.com/2026/01/afm-publishes-supervisory-...

What Changed

• As the 21 July 2026 CSSF notice is an enforcement publication (not a new rule), it does not introduce new regulatory requirements; it applies existing Transparency Law obligations.
• Issuers with Luxembourg as home Member State under the Transparency Law must publish annual financial reports within the statutory deadline, typically within four months of financial year-end, and...
• Failure to publish periodic financial information within the required time limits can result in administrative fines imposed by the CSSF under Article 25(2) of the Transparency Law.
• The CSSF will publicly disclose administrative fines imposed on issuers, including naming the issuer and the amount, in line with Article 26b of the Transparency Law.
• Issuers retain the right to challenge CSSF decisions before the Luxembourg Administrative Court within the period set by Article 27 of the Transparency Law (three months from notification), but...

Suggested Considerations

• Map all Transparency Law obligations applicable to your entity, including periodic (annual and half‑yearly) reporting and ongoing disclosure of regulated information, and document them in a compliance obligations register.
• Review and, where necessary, strengthen internal processes to ensure annual and half‑yearly financial reports are prepared, approved, and published within statutory deadlines for issuers with Luxembourg as home Member State.
• Implement a formal disclosure governance framework assigning clear responsibilities to senior management and the board for oversight of regulated information, including escalation procedures where delays or issues arise.
• Establish a calendar of regulatory reporting and publication deadlines, including internal cut‑off dates and contingency plans, and ensure it is monitored by compliance and finance functions.
• Conduct a gap analysis of prior disclosures (financial reports, major holdings notifications, inside information) to confirm that all items required under the Transparency Law have been published correctly and on time; remediate any deficiencies promptly.

Key Dates

References

• [1] offshorealert.com/transnet-soc-ltd-e15k-fine/
• [2] opensanctions.org/entities/NK-YGvBVghMpKt3CGHYCGfn2N/
• [3] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/S_31_TRA_151121_en.pdf
• [4] iol.co.za/news/south-africa/2026-07-09-transnet-blacklist...
• [5] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/S_17_PSF_SP_JTC-Luxembourg-S.A...
• [6] siu.org.za/special-tribunal-freezes-r20-3-million-in-asse...
• [7] centralbank.ie/regulation/how-we-regulate/international-f...
• [8] cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/FAQ_International_financial_sa...

What Changed

• - ESMA reports that NCAs have strengthened authorisation assessments by placing greater emphasis on firms’ cross-border business plans and intentions before granting or maintaining permissions.
• NCAs are increasingly using data-driven and risk-based supervision to monitor cross-border activity and calibrate supervisory attention to the scale, nature, and complexity of the activity.
• NCAs have expanded cooperation and enforcement, including more targeted supervisory actions and reporting of enforcement cases where relevant.
• ESMA expects NCAs with significant outbound cross-border activity to ensure that their supervisory and enforcement approaches are proportionate to the level of risk and business volume.
• The report reinforces that cross-border activity should be treated as a distinct supervisory risk area, not merely as an incidental extension of domestic supervision.

Suggested Considerations

• Review cross-border business plans for all passported investment services and ensure they are supported by clear governance, staffing, systems, and client-service arrangements.
• Map all outbound cross-border activities by jurisdiction, client type, product type, and distribution channel so that compliance can identify where supervisory risk is highest.
• Strengthen controls over retail cross-border activity, including marketing, suitability/appropriateness, complaints handling, and local conduct requirements in each host market.
• Prepare to provide supervisors with more granular evidence of how cross-border risks are identified, monitored, escalated, and mitigated.
• Ensure internal reporting can distinguish cross-border revenue, complaints, incidents, and enforcement exposure from domestic business lines.

Key Dates

References

• [1] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2026-07/ESMA42-2004696...
• [2] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-finds-shortcomin...
• [3] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-10/ESMA22-5075148...
• [4] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-12/ESMA35-3354356...
• [5] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2026-06/ESMA22-5075148...
• [6] schoenherr.eu/content/to-the-point-financial-regulation-1...
• [7] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-report...
• [8] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma42-111-553...

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...

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.

Key Dates

References

• [1] amf-france.org/fr/actualites-publications/positions-ue-de...
• [2] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/amf-encourages-f...
• [3] societegenerale.lu/fileadmin/user_upload/sgss_regulatory_...
• [4] ici.org/system/files/2026-05/2605-cl-ec-consultation-on-s...

What Changed

• - BaFin has explicitly treated a material cyberattack on a listed software company as *inside information* that must be disclosed without delay under Article 17(1) MAR.
• The decision confirms that failure to publish inside information “as soon as possible” constitutes a contravention of subparagraph 1 of Article 17(1) MAR and is subject to administrative fines.
• BaFin reiterates that issuers based in Germany with securities traded on an organised market in Germany are subject to an ad hoc disclosure obligation for inside information.
• BaFin highlights that inside information includes precise, non-public information directly or indirectly relating to an issuer or its instruments, which would likely have a significant price effect...
• The enforcement action illustrates BaFin’s willingness to use its full MAR toolkit on disclosure failures, with potential maximum fines of €2.5 million or up to 2% of total revenue for similar...

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct an immediate review of incident classification frameworks to ensure that significant cyberattacks are systematically assessed for MAR “inside information” criteria, including likely price impact.
• Update ad hoc disclosure policies and procedures to explicitly cover cyber incidents, including clear triggers, escalation paths, and decision-making timelines for potential MAR disclosures.
• Implement or enhance cross-functional incident response governance so that Security / IT, Legal, Compliance and Investor Relations jointly evaluate cyber events for ad hoc disclosure obligations.
• Review and, where necessary, revise Board and senior management training to cover MAR Article 17 obligations in the context of cyber incidents and operational disruptions.
• Test existing “ad hoc announcement” workflows (including drafting, approval and publication mechanisms) to confirm the firm can publish inside information on cyberattacks “as soon as possible” in practice, including outside normal business hours.

Key Dates

References

• [1] fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/germanys-federal-fi...
• [2] bafin.de/EN/home_node_en.html
• [3] ba-fin.net/DieBaFin/Service/MVPportal/Verdacht_MAR/verdac...
• [4] fxnewsgroup.com/category/forex-news/regulatory/
• [5] wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/20896242-eqs-pvr-teamviewe...
• [6] teamviewer.com/en-us/legal/imprint/

What Changed

• - The CBI has formally listed Aoncfd (CLONE) as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm that is not permitted to provide investment services or operate as an investment firm in...
• The CBI has publicly identified Aoncfd (CLONE)’s websites, email address, and purported Dublin address to support monitoring and blocking efforts by firms and market infrastructures.
• The CBI has clarified that Aoncfd (CLONE) is a clone entity that has copied the name, address and foreign registration details (CONSOB Registration 5141) of Aon Solutions Ireland Limited, and that...
• The publication reiterates that the CBI will use its section 53 naming power under the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 to publicly warn about unauthorised firms.
• The notice reinforces existing expectations that firms, consumers, and intermediaries should use the CBI’s authorisations register and list of unauthorised firms as part of fraud and clone‑risk...

Suggested Considerations

• Firms should immediately screen client referral sources, onboarding records, and any existing or prospective relationships against the identifiers published for Aoncfd (CLONE) (names, URLs, email, and purported address) and block or terminate any exposure.
• Compliance teams should update internal fraud and financial crime watchlists and sanctions‑style screening tools to include Aoncfd (CLONE) and the specific URLs, email address and address cited in the warning.
• Authorised firms, particularly Aon Solutions Ireland Limited, should conduct brand‑misuse and impersonation checks (including web‑scraping, social media monitoring and domain surveillance) to identify further clone activity and prepare incident‑response plans.
• Client‑facing staff should be briefed via targeted compliance communications to warn clients about clone firms and to ensure they direct clients to the CBI’s register and unauthorised firms list when verifying any investment provider claiming an Irish authorisation.
• Firms should review and, where necessary, enhance KYC and onboarding controls to include explicit verification of a counterparty’s regulatory authorisation in Ireland (or relevant jurisdiction) and checks for inconsistencies between provided details and registry information.

Key Dates

References

• [1] centralbank.ie/news/article/fti-finance-limited-(clone)--...
• [2] fi.ee/sites/default/files/2023-02/CENTRA~2.PDF
• [3] finanstilsynet.no/contentassets/4bd8bb48debc4989af4e599b1...

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,...

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.

Key Dates

References

• [1] reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=32...
• [2] morganlewis.com/blogs/finreg/2023/04/an-end-to-the-paper-...
• [3] sec.gov/rules-regulations/2000/04/use-electronic-media
• [4] sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2023/33-11176.pdf
• [5] sec.gov/comments/s7-09-20/s70920-8210190-227541.pdf
• [6] finra.org/media-center/blog/facilitating-e-delivery-while...
• [7] planadviser.com/white-house-to-review-sec-electronic-deli...
• [8] klgates.com/Click-Here-for-Your-Fund-Report-SEC-Endorses-...

What Changed

• - Regulation (EU) 2024/2809 amends elements of the Prospectus Regulation, and those amendments fully took effect on 5 June 2026.
• The Prospectus Regulation continues to apply as the core EU framework for prospectuses, with the CBI acting as the competent authority in Ireland for approval matters.
• The CBI states that it must decide on a prospectus application within 90 working days of receipt of the initial application, or 100 working days for an SME.
• If the review exceeds the applicable working-day limit, the CBI will cease reviewing the prospectus without approving it and will notify the issuer, offeror, or person seeking admission to trading.
• A one-off extension of 30 working days may be requested before the original 90 working-day period lapses, including for SMEs.

Suggested Considerations

• Review all prospectus templates, disclosure checklists, and approval workflows against the amended Prospectus Regulation provisions that became fully applicable on 5 June 2026.
• Reassess transaction timetables to ensure the planned filing date allows for the 90 working day or 100 working day CBI review window, plus any needed extension request.
• Submit any request for a one-off 30 working day extension before the original approval period expires, and include the required reference details in the request.
• Confirm whether any current or planned issuance qualifies as an SME transaction, because the approval deadline differs from the standard timetable.
• Update internal sign-off procedures so legal, finance, and compliance teams can demonstrate that prospectus materials are prepared in line with the CBI’s statutory mandate and the amended EU framework.

Key Dates

References

• [1] centralbank.ie/regulation/industry-market-sectors/securit...
• [2] centralbank.ie/regulation/industry-market-sectors/securit...
• [3] lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3a44879f-3ddb-4233-974...
• [4] byrnewallaceshields.com/news-and-recent-work/publications...
• [5] irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2022/si/135/made/en/print
• [6] irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/si/380/made/en/pdf
• [7] williamfry.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Securities-Regu...

What Changed

• - The PRA Rulebook is amended across core CRR Parts (including Glossary, Credit Risk – General Provisions, Standardised Approach, IRB, Credit Risk Mitigation, Securitisation, Counterparty Credit...
• Definitions of key exposure classes (such as “institution”, “credit institution”, “designated investment firm”, “central government”, “central bank”, “regional government”, “local authority”, “public...
• Under the Standardised Approach to credit risk, the treatment of exposures to overseas credit institutions and designated investment firms is aligned to OPRR designations so that favourable...
• The PRA restates and preserves the 100% risk-weight requirement for exposures to overseas public sector entities (PSEs) in non-designated (non‑equivalent) jurisdictions, maintaining alignment with...
• Large Exposures rules are amended so that exposures to overseas credit institutions and investment firms qualify as “institution” exposures only where HM Treasury has determined the jurisdiction’s...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update internal capital models and Standardised Approach calculations for credit risk to ensure the classification and risk‑weighting of overseas exposures reflect the new OPRR‑linked definitions (e.g. treatment as “institutions” versus “corporates”) from 01 January 2027.
• Update ICAAP methodologies, risk appetite statements, and SREP documentation (including for SDDTs) to reflect the continued 100% risk weight for overseas public sector entities in non‑designated jurisdictions and any changes to the treatment of overseas covered bonds, institutions, and exchanges.
• Amend Pillar 2 reporting processes and templates, including FSA076 Pillar 2 Credit Risk Standardised Approach returns, to align data capture and reporting with the revised definitions, risk weights, and categorisation of overseas exposures under the PRA’s updated Rulebook and Statements of Policy.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/202...
• [2] bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/202...
• [3] finreg.aoshearman.com/uk-pra-consults-on-rule-changes-for...
• [4] assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6994777dc0aa8279cb...
• [5] legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2026/9780348285178/pdfs/ukdsiem_...
• [6] ukfinance.org.uk/system/files/2026-04/UK%20Finance%20resp...

What Changed

• - Licensed SCF operators must implement structured due diligence checks on issuers, including clear policies on information to be obtained, risk assessment criteria and documentation standards, and...
• Lending-based SCF operators are generally prohibited from allowing a borrower to take up a new loan to repay an existing overdue loan, unless there are legitimate, documented reasons to extend a new...
• Where a lending-based SCF operator does extend a new loan to a borrower with outstanding loans, it must disclose the borrower’s total outstanding loans and the reasons for extending the new loan so...
• SCF operators must establish formal policies and procedures for issuer default management, documenting circumstances under which the operator will pursue various recovery options (e.g.
• Operators must disclose to investors the different recovery options and associated costs and must seek and obtain investors’ consent before incurring any recovery-related costs that will be borne by...

Suggested Considerations

• Review existing issuer due diligence policies and procedures and update them to align with MAS’s expectations on structured checks, documentation, and investor disclosure of due diligence scope for all SCF offers.
• Implement a formal policy prohibiting the use of new loans to repay existing overdue loans, except where legitimate reasons exist; define those reasons, approval thresholds and documentation requirements for exceptions.
• Enhance lending workflows to ensure that, when new loans are extended to borrowers with outstanding loans, the platform system automatically collates and presents total outstanding exposure and the rationale for the new loan to investors in pre-investment disclosures.
• Develop and approve a detailed issuer default management framework that defines escalation triggers, recovery options, decision criteria, investor communication templates, and record-keeping requirements.
• Update investor terms and conditions and consent mechanisms so that investors explicitly agree to any potential recovery-related costs, with clear fee schedules and scenarios disclosed before costs are incurred.

Key Dates

References

• [1] ronaldjjwong.com/2018/10/24/mas-circular-controls-disclos...
• [2] singaporefintech.org/news/controls-and-disclosures-to-be-...
• [3] nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/20160608004/Press%2...
• [4] caas.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs---legal/air-navigati...
• [5] bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2015...
• [6] sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/SFA2001-RG13?DocDate=20181005&ViewType=...
• [7] conventuslaw.com/report/mas-clarifies-crowdfunding-access...
• [8] mas.gov.sg/-/media/compliance-toolkit-for-approvals-notif...