Market Abuse / Surveillance

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

• - 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

• - 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

• - 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

• - 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

• - 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 SFC and CSRC reinforced their commitment to joint enforcement cooperation specifically targeting cross‑boundary crimes and misconduct that affect both Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese markets.
• Both regulators agreed to deepen discussions and coordination around recent major cross‑boundary enforcement cases, indicating more systematic case‑level collaboration and mutual assistance.
• The authorities explicitly prioritised enhancing mechanisms for information exchange, implying more frequent, timely and possibly more granular sharing of regulatory, supervisory and investigative...
• The meeting confirms that cross‑boundary enforcement and investor protection remain strategic enforcement priorities for both the SFC and CSRC, which will likely influence case selection, resource...
• The emphasis on improving enforcement effectiveness and deterrence signals a likely increase in coordinated investigations, simultaneous actions, and potential parallel sanctions in both...

Suggested Considerations

• Review existing cross‑boundary business models, trading flows and client bases to identify areas where misconduct or control failures could trigger coordinated enforcement action by both the SFC and CSRC.
• Update enforcement‑facing compliance risk assessments to reflect heightened cross‑boundary enforcement cooperation, including the possibility of information sharing and parallel investigations by both regulators.
• Enhance incident escalation and regulatory engagement protocols to ensure that potential cross‑boundary issues (e.g. market manipulation, insider dealing, cross‑border fraud) are promptly identified and addressed with both Hong Kong and Mainland regulators where relevant.
• Review and, where necessary, strengthen surveillance and market‑abuse monitoring tools to capture cross‑market patterns (e.g. trading in Hong Kong linked to events or positions in Mainland markets).
• Ensure record‑keeping, trade data, client information and cross‑border communication logs are complete, accurate and retrievable, given the regulators’ focus on improving information exchange.

Key Dates

References

• [1] charltonslaw.com/sfc-and-csrc-hold-high-level-enforcement...
• [2] hk-lawyer.org/content/sfc-and-csrc-sign-memorandum-enhanc...
• [3] hkcgi.org.hk/news-event/news-detail/312288
• [4] icac.org.hk/en/p/press-archive/by-year/index_id_1598.html
• [5] investment-international.com/News/sfc-and-csrc-agree-deep...
• [6] csrc.gov.cn/csrc_en/c102030/c7125023/content.shtml
• [7] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announce...
• [8] weex.com/news/detail/china-securities-regulatory-commissi...

What Changed

• - The SEC is reinstating the Retail Fraud Working Group within the Division of Enforcement to concentrate resources on identifying and pursuing misconduct that disproportionately harms retail...
• The Working Group will support stronger coordination with state and federal enforcement partners, including improved information-sharing and joint efforts.
• The SEC’s enforcement priorities now explicitly include offering fraud, accounting and disclosure fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, fraud by foreign actors, and fiduciary breaches...
• The SEC is signaling that it will distinguish between honest mistakes and actual fraud, but will still assess whether errors caused investor harm and calibrate remedies accordingly.
• The initiative reinforces the SEC’s broader retail-investor focus, building on the earlier Retail Strategy Task Force and related retail-protection efforts.

Suggested Considerations

• Review retail-facing sales, disclosure, and supervision controls for gaps that could create exposure under SEC fraud theories.
• Reassess product approval, marketing review, and suitability procedures for offerings sold to individual investors.
• Test whether financial reporting, performance, and valuation disclosures could be challenged as misleading or incomplete.
• Strengthen surveillance for insider trading, market manipulation, and suspicious transaction patterns involving retail accounts.
• Reevaluate client-asset safeguarding, custody, and trade-allocation controls to prevent misuse or misappropriation.

Key Dates

References

• [1] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/05/sec-enforcemen...
• [2] thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/2026/05/sec-enforcement-new-...
• [3] stblaw.com/about-us/publications/view/2026/05/14/sec-watc...
• [4] morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/06/securities-enforcement-round...
• [5] sec.gov/fact-sheets/sec-protects-retail-investors-markets
• [6] sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/woodcock-remarks-mfa...
• [7] linkedin.com/posts/timothynewman_yesterday-newly-appointe...
• [8] investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role...

What Changed

• - BaFin reinforces that issuers on an organised market must publish inside information “without delay” under Article 17(1) MAR; failure to do so constitutes an administrative offence subject to...
• The publication clarifies the maximum fine levels for MAR ad‑hoc disclosure breaches: up to €2.5 million or 2% of total turnover, whichever is higher, for legal persons.
• BaFin reiterates half‑yearly financial reporting obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG): issuers must publish half‑yearly financial reports no later than three months after the...
• In addition to the report itself, firms must publish a separate announcement (“Hinweisbekanntmachung”) specifying when and where the half‑yearly financial report will be publicly available (including...
• BaFin confirms that failure to publish financial reports and the corresponding announcements, or to do so within the prescribed period, is a WpHG contravention and subject to enforcement.

Suggested Considerations

• Review and, where necessary, update internal MAR Article 17(1) ad‑hoc disclosure policies to ensure that all inside information is identified promptly and disclosed to the market without undue delay.
• Implement or strengthen inside information identification and escalation procedures, ensuring front‑office, finance, strategy and legal functions can rapidly flag potentially price‑sensitive, non‑public information to compliance and the executive board.
• Conduct a gap analysis of past and upcoming financial reporting cycles (annual and half‑yearly) to confirm that all reports and associated announcements have been published within the WpHG three‑month deadlines and in the prescribed form.
• Establish a formal reporting calendar that clearly tracks statutory deadlines for half‑yearly financial reports and “Hinweisbekanntmachungen”, with responsibility assigned to named owners in finance, legal and investor relations.
• Review and update disclosure committee charters or equivalent governance structures to ensure clear accountability for MAR‑relevant decisions, including documentation of the assessment of inside information and any delay decisions.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...
• [2] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Massnahmen/40c...
• [3] bafin.de/EN/die-bafin/die-bafin_node_en.html
• [4] bafin.de/EN/die-bafin/publikationen-daten/jahresbericht/j...
• [5] policyrix.com/news/2026-07-06/germany-bafin-steps-up-enfo...
• [6] handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/bafin-batteriehers...
• [7] bafin.de/EN/PublikationenDaten/Jahresbericht/Jahresberich...
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/bafin-publishes-guidelines-for-high...

What Changed

• - MAS reaffirmed its willingness to hold senior management personally accountable where they fail to ensure their institution complies with MAS regulations, as illustrated by reprimands against...
• MAS demonstrated continued zero tolerance for trading-related offences under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), supporting criminal prosecutions that resulted in imprisonment and substantial fines...
• MAS confirmed that Major Payment Institution (MPI) licences can and will be revoked where inspections reveal significant weaknesses in risk management, conflict-of-interest policies, and...
• MAS signalled continued priority on AML/CFT supervision and enforcement by imposing a $300,000 composition penalty on a licensed trust company (Padang Trust Singapore Pte.
• MAS underscored its ongoing focus on insider trading and market abuse by imposing a civil penalty on an individual for insider trading in shares of a Singapore-listed (now delisted) company.

Suggested Considerations

• Review and, where necessary, enhance senior management and board-level oversight frameworks to ensure that responsibilities for MAS regulatory compliance are clearly allocated, documented, and evidenced (e.g. through committee charters, management information, and challenge records).
• Conduct a targeted compliance review at fund managers and other CMS licence holders to assess adherence to MAS regulations, focusing on areas previously cited in MAS enforcement actions (e.g. internal controls, client asset safeguards, and recordkeeping).
• For Major Payment Institutions and other payment providers, perform a comprehensive gap analysis of risk management frameworks, conflict-of-interest policies, and compliance with MAS Guidelines on Outsourcing, including due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and intra-group/related-party arrangements.
• Implement or strengthen formal governance around the accuracy and completeness of all information submitted to MAS (licence applications, regulatory returns, inspection responses), including sign-off controls, documentation standards, and verification procedures.
• For licensed trust companies and other AML/CFT-obliged entities, review and update AML/CFT policies, customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) procedures, ongoing monitoring, and suspicious transaction reporting processes in line with MAS Notices and Guidelines.

Key Dates

References

• [1] mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/2026/key-enforcement-actio...
• [2] linkedin.com/pulse/mas-imposes-over-20m-penalties-aml-mar...
• [3] mas.gov.sg/regulation/enforcement/enforcement-actions
• [4] ncontracts.com/nsight-blog/enforcement-actions-roundup-ap...
• [5] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-34
• [6] opensanctions.org/datasets/sg_mas_enforcement_actions/
• [7] reedsmith.com/articles/investigations-and-enforcement-tre...
• [8] fincen.gov/news/enforcement-actions

What Changed

• - The Court of First Instance has granted a worldwide freezing injunction over the assets of Mr Lo Kai Bong, prohibiting him from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of his...
• The Court has concurrently granted a worldwide Chabra injunction over the assets of Major Success Group Limited, a BVI company wholly owned and controlled by Mr Lo, on the basis that its assets may...
• The injunctions apply to assets in Hong Kong and worldwide, significantly expanding enforcement risk beyond Hong Kong-situs assets for controlling shareholders and their offshore structures.
• The Court has ordered that both injunctions remain in effect at least until 26 August 2026, subject to further order, meaning the assets will be frozen through the lead-up to trial.
• The injunctions are explicitly tied to ongoing section 214 SFO proceedings seeking remedies for unfair prejudice and misconduct, including a share repurchase order for independent shareholders of LET...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and map all relationships with controlling shareholders, directors and their offshore vehicles to identify where client assets may be exposed to SFC-driven freezing orders or Chabra relief.
• Update internal litigation and regulatory investigations playbooks to explicitly cover section 214 SFO risks, including the potential for worldwide asset-freezing and receiver appointments even after an issuer is delisted.
• Implement enhanced due diligence on beneficial ownership and control structures, particularly BVI and other offshore vehicles used by controlling shareholders of Hong Kong-listed and recently delisted issuers.
• For banks, broker dealers and custodians, review current accounts, credit exposures, collateral and custody arrangements for clients who are directors, controlling shareholders or their vehicles in Hong Kong issuers, and identify those at heightened risk of SFC enforcement.
• Enhance early-warning triggers in compliance monitoring to escalate promptly when the SFC announces section 214 SFO proceedings or issues press releases suggesting asset preservation measures may be sought.

Key Dates

References

• [1] law1a.nus.edu.sg/cbfl/pdfs/working_papers/CBFL-WP-HY02.pdf
• [2] dlapiper.com/insights/publications/2024/10/section-214-pr...
• [3] elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap571!en/s214?_lang=en
• [4] sfc.hk/-/media/EN/files/COM/QR-Reports/202104-06/2eEnforc...
• [5] mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/news/2016/07/the-securities-...
• [6] researchblog.law.hku.hk/2019/01/martin-kwan-pcll-on-shoul...
• [7] elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap571
• [8] charltonslaw.com/legal/compliance/Hong-Kong-SFC-power-to-...

What Changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cnbc.com/2026/06/23/cftc-sues-kentucky-over-actions-again...
• [2] thehill.com/policy/technology/5937031-cftc-lawsuit-kentuc...
• [3] mlex.com/articles/2493033/us-cftc-sues-kentucky-over-enfo...
• [4] techechelon.com/post/cftc-sues-kentucky-over-prediction-m...
• [5] thedefiant.io/news/regulation/cftc-sues-kentucky-exclusiv...
• [6] x.com/RVanGrack/status/2067418512776171785
• [7] binance.com/en/square/post/337324929676706
• [8] cms.stateaffairs.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/CFTC-v-KY...

What Changed

• - The SFC will implement the Hong Kong Investor Identification Regime for the Derivatives Market (HKIDR‑DM), extending investor ID requirements from securities (HKIDR‑S) to exchange‑traded...
• HKIDR‑DM will apply to on‑exchange orders for futures contracts, options contracts and stock options executed through the trading system of Hong Kong Futures Exchange Limited (HKFE).
• Licensed corporations and registered institutions which offer brokerage services or conduct proprietary trading in HKFE‑traded derivatives will be required to submit clients’ names and identity...
• The operational model of HKIDR‑DM will be similar to HKIDR‑S, implying the use of unique client identifiers and order‑level tagging across trading, middle office and reporting systems.
• Implementation of HKIDR‑DM is targeted for the second quarter of 2028, subject to successful completion of system testing and market rehearsals.

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct a gap analysis comparing existing HKIDR‑S securities processes with expected HKIDR‑DM derivatives requirements, covering data fields, identifiers, and order tagging for futures and options.
• Identify all business lines and systems that submit or route HKFE on‑exchange futures, options and stock options orders, and map required integration points with the HKIDR‑DM centralised data repository.
• Design and implement or adapt a client identification and coding framework (e.g. investor IDs or broker‑to‑client numbers) for derivatives clients, ensuring consistency across securities and derivatives where clients trade both.
• Review and update client onboarding, KYC and data collection forms to ensure capture of all identity information required under HKIDR‑DM, including for existing derivatives clients.
• Develop and implement data protection and privacy controls to manage personal data submitted under HKIDR‑DM, including access controls, retention policies, and compliance with Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.

Key Dates

References

• [1] mondaq.com/hongkong/securities/1699178/sfc-consultation-o...
• [2] asifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/210830-hong-kong-in...
• [3] mondovisione.com/media-and-resources/news/hong-kong-secur...
• [4] help.saxo/hc/en-hk/articles/7129250469021-Hong-Kong-Inves...
• [5] freshfields.com/en/our-thinking/blogs/risk-and-compliance...
• [6] hkex.com.hk/Services/Trading/Securities/Overview/Trading-...
• [7] linkedin.com/posts/securities-and-futures-commission_sfc-...
• [8] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/api/consultation/openFile?la...

What Changed

• - The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (17 CFR 242.611), which currently requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably...
• The rescission would eliminate the current requirement on trading centers to prevent executions at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed on other trading centers, subject to the present...
• The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 610(e) of Regulation NMS, which currently imposes caps on access fees that trading centers may charge for the execution of quotations in NMS stocks, intended to...
• The proposal would remove the regulatory framework that links protection of top‑of‑book quotations with capped access fees, allowing market forces and competition to shape routing behavior, fee...
• The proposal would likely be accompanied by conforming amendments to related definitions and cross‑references in Regulation NMS that currently rely on or reference Rules 611 and 610(e).

Suggested Considerations

• Map all current policies, procedures, and controls that explicitly reference or rely on Rule 611 (Order Protection Rule) and Rule 610(e) (access fee caps), including best‑execution frameworks, routing policies, fee schedules, and surveillance rules.
• Conduct a system inventory of smart order routing, execution algorithms, and venue connectivity logic that prevents trade‑throughs of protected quotations and enforces access‑fee caps, and identify components that would need redesign if Rules 611 and 610(e) are rescinded.
• Review and, if necessary, update best‑execution policies and client disclosures to decouple best‑execution rationales from mechanical Rule 611 compliance, preparing a framework that can operate in an environment without trade‑through prohibitions or fee caps.
• Enhance governance processes to monitor the SEC rulemaking, assign ownership (e.g., to a market structure working group), and prepare internal impact assessments and board‑level briefings on potential business, conduct, and conflict‑of‑interest implications of rescission.
• Develop scenario analyses and playbooks describing how routing strategies, venue selection, and payment‑for‑order‑flow or other economic arrangements would be adjusted in the absence of Rule 611 and Rule 610(e).

Key Dates

References

• [1] skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2025/11/how_the_se...
• [2] sec.gov/comments/4-862/4862-662547-1977554.pdf
• [3] law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/242.611
• [4] x.com/SECGov/status/2065093130404163701/photo/1
• [5] x.com/SECGov/status/2065093133583487076
• [6] sifma.org/advocacy/letters/supplemental-request-for-immed...
• [7] sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule611faq.pdf
• [8] federalregister.gov/documents/2004/12/27/04-27934/regulat...

What Changed

• - BaFin has reaffirmed that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below specified thresholds under sections 33 et...
• BaFin explicitly links late or missing voting rights notifications to contraventions of section 33 et seq. WpHG, which can trigger administrative fines.
• The publication clarifies that BaFin may impose fines either for each individual contravention or for a breach of supervisory duties, broadening enforcement beyond isolated reporting errors to...
• For legal entities, BaFin reiterates that the maximum possible fine for such infringements is €10 million or up to 5% of total revenue, whichever is higher under the WpHG regime.
• BaFin emphasizes that a breach of supervisory duties arises where a firm fails to take sufficient organisational measures to prevent or significantly impede contraventions, signalling expectations...

Suggested Considerations

• Map all holdings in German listed equities and associated financial instruments to WpHG voting rights thresholds and implement automated monitoring to detect when thresholds are reached, exceeded, or fallen below.
• Establish and document internal procedures to ensure that both the issuer and BaFin are notified within four trading days whenever WpHG thresholds are triggered, including clear allocation of responsibilities and escalation paths.
• Review and strengthen organisational measures (policies, systems, controls) to prevent or significantly impede late or missed voting rights notifications, evidencing compliance with supervisory duty expectations under WpHG.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing major shareholding and transparency procedures against WpHG requirements, and remediate identified weaknesses, including in data feeds, trade capture, and aggregation of voting rights across entities and portfolios.
• Train front‑office, operations, and compliance staff on WpHG voting rights notification obligations, including thresholds, calculation methodologies, timelines, and dual notification requirements to issuers and BaFin.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...
• [2] bafin.de/EN/die-bafin/die-bafin_node_en.html
• [3] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Massnahmen/40c...
• [4] haoib.com/deguobafinfakuanresolution-capital-8wanouyuan/
• [5] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...

What Changed

• - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
• The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
• The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
• The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
• The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...

Suggested Considerations

• Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
• Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
• Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
• Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
• For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8907-24
• [2] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/FederalRegister/proposedrules/2024...
• [3] mofo.com/resources/insights/240520-cftc-issues-proposed-r...
• [4] willkie.com/publications/2026/03/prediction-markets-cftc-...
• [5] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2026/03/us-cftc-issues...
• [6] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/FederalRegister/proposedrules/2026...
• [7] federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/10/2024-12125/event...
• [8] steptoe.com/en/news-publications/Proposed-CFTC-Event-Cont...

What Changed

• - The case confirms that advising another person to trade, while in possession of non‑public, price‑sensitive information obtained in the capacity of chairman and controlling shareholder, constitutes...
• The sentencing outcome reinforces that insider dealing offences in Hong Kong now routinely attract immediate custodial sentences, rather than fines alone, where there is deliberate misuse of inside...
• The decision illustrates that trading by close family members funded by the insider, and executed before public announcement of a controlling-stake disposal, will be treated by the SFC and the courts...
• The case demonstrates that electronic communications (e.g. WhatsApp messages giving timing and price instructions) will be treated as direct evidence of advising another person to deal and of...
• The SFC has signalled, through public statements accompanying the sentencing, that it will continue to pursue criminal prosecutions for insider dealing to “protect investors and uphold confidence in...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update insider dealing and market misconduct policies to explicitly address advising or inducing family members or connected persons to trade on inside information, including where trading is funded by the insider.
• Implement or tighten pre‑clearance and restricted‑list procedures for directors, senior management and controlling shareholders, ensuring controls extend to trading through relatives, nominees, family vehicles and related accounts.
• Establish or reinforce clear written guidance to all “connected persons” (including family members where appropriate) explaining what constitutes inside information under the SFO, and explicitly prohibiting trading or advice based on such information before disclosure.
• Enhance monitoring of employee, director and connected‑person dealings, including periodic attestations requiring disclosure of accounts held by spouses, siblings and close relatives that trade in related listed securities.
• Update training programmes for directors, senior executives and licensed representatives to include this case as a recent Hong Kong example of criminal insider dealing, emphasising the risk of imprisonment and confiscatory orders.

Key Dates

References

• [1] prudent.hk/post/movie-producer-wong-pak-ming-convicted-of...
• [2] timothyloh.com/insights/latest-news/movie-producer-wong-p...
• [3] mondovisione.com/media-and-resources/news/movie-producer-...
• [4] thestandard.com.hk/finance/article/332745/HK-movie-produc...
• [5] scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3354517/hon...
• [6] caproasia.com/2026/05/24/hong-kong-court-convicts-hong-ko...
• [7] sfc.hk/en/SFC-Search/Search?text=Pak&ui_lang=en

What Changed

• - The Clearing Rules will be amended to designate two fixed calendar periods each year—1 March to 31 May and 1 September to 30 November—as calculation periods for determining mandatory clearing...
• The new standard calculation periods will apply from 1 March 2027 onwards, creating a permanent formulaic approach that generates future calculation periods without requiring further legislative...
• The existing approach of periodically updating the list of calculation periods in the Clearing Rules via legislative amendments will be replaced by this once‑and‑for‑all standardisation.
• The Prescribed Days associated with each calculation period will also be aligned with the new standard periods, providing greater clarity on when clearing obligations are triggered and when positions...
• The change is intended to increase certainty for derivative dealers in identifying future calculation periods and to facilitate more effective internal planning and compliance monitoring.

Suggested Considerations

• Map current OTC derivative portfolios and position‑monitoring systems to the new standard calculation periods (1 March–31 May and 1 September–30 November) and update internal calendars and compliance checklists accordingly.
• Review and amend internal policies, procedures, and control frameworks for mandatory clearing, including position‑sizing methodologies, threshold calculations, and record‑keeping requirements, to reflect the permanent calculation‑period structure.
• Coordinate with legal and compliance teams to track the progress of the legislative amendments and ensure that internal implementation timelines align with the expected effective date of 1 March 2027.
• Update trade capture, risk, and reporting systems to flag trades and positions that fall within the new calculation periods and to generate alerts when clearing thresholds are approached or breached.
• Train relevant front‑office, middle‑office, and compliance staff on the new calculation‑period regime, including the timing of Prescribed Days and the implications for trade execution, clearing decisions, and documentation.

Key Dates

References

• [1] hkma.gov.hk/eng/news-and-media/press-releases/2026/01/202...
• [2] hkma.gov.hk/eng/news-and-media/press-releases/2023/08/202...
• [3] hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/press-release/2...
• [4] info.gov.hk/gia/general/202601/29/P2026012900244.htm
• [5] timothyloh.com/insights/guides/global-benchmark-reforms-h...
• [6] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/consultation/doc
• [7] isda.org/2026/03/03/isda-response-to-hkma-sfc-consultatio...
• [8] brdr.hkma.gov.hk/eng/doc-ldg/docId/20260129-1-EN

What Changed

• - The CFTC has rescinded the policy in Appendix A to Part 10 that prevented the Commission from accepting settlement offers where a respondent or defendant continued to deny the allegations in a...
• The CFTC will now accept settlements even where the settling party publicly denies or continues to deny the CFTC’s allegations, provided other settlement terms are satisfied.
• The CFTC has stated that it will not enforce existing no-deny (neither‑admit‑nor‑deny) provisions in settlements that have already been entered.
• If a settling party breaches an existing no-deny provision, the CFTC will not allege breach of contract, seek to reopen the matter, ask a district court to vacate the settlement, or reopen an...
• The rescission does not alter the CFTC’s discretion to: - settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability; or - negotiate and require admissions of facts or liability in...

Suggested Considerations

• Review all existing CFTC settlement orders, consent orders, and related agreements to identify any no‑deny or neither‑admit‑nor‑deny clauses and update internal records to reflect that the CFTC has stated it will not enforce those provisions.
• Update internal enforcement and litigation playbooks to incorporate the new settlement flexibility, including explicit guidance that public denials post‑settlement may be possible but should be subject to legal and reputational risk review.
• Revise board- and senior‑management reporting on CFTC enforcement risks and settlement strategy to reflect the rescission of the no‑deny policy and the availability of settlements without waiving the ability to contest allegations in public communications.
• Implement or update communications and investor‑relations protocols governing post‑settlement statements, ensuring any public denials or clarifications are coordinated with legal, compliance, and, where relevant, parallel regulators or criminal authorities.
• For ongoing CFTC investigations or settlement negotiations, instruct external and internal counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek terms that preserve the firm’s ability to deny or contest aspects of the CFTC’s allegations after settlement.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9247-26
• [2] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-45-sec-rescinds-poli...
• [3] gibsondunn.com/undeniably-deniable-sec-rescinds-policy-on...
• [4] cftc.gov/media/14106/NeitherDenyNorAdmitRescission060326/...
• [5] federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/21/2026-10132/resci...
• [6] binance.com/en/square/post/330358517783154
• [7] cftc.gov

What Changed

• - BaFin reiterates that shareholders subject to German transparency rules must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below...
• BaFin clarifies that failure to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period constitutes a contravention of sections 33 ff. WpHG, exposing firms to administrative fines.
• BaFin confirms that it may impose fines either per individual contravention or for a breach of supervisory duties, thereby targeting not only the specific lapse but also deficiencies in the firm’s...
• For legal entities, BaFin restates that the maximum administrative fine for WpHG disclosure breaches is €10 million or up to 5% of total revenue, whichever is higher.
• In this case, BaFin chose to sanction a breach of supervisory duties, expressly stating that the firm did not take sufficient organisational measures to prevent or significantly impede the voting...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and map all holdings and mandates that are subject to German WpHG voting rights notification requirements, including fund, mandate, and proprietary positions in German listed issuers.
• Implement or enhance automated monitoring systems to track voting rights positions against WpHG thresholds and to flag potential threshold crossings in near real time.
• Establish clear internal procedures to compute voting rights positions according to WpHG rules, including aggregation across funds, accounts, and instruments, and to identify when positions reach, exceed, or fall below relevant thresholds.
• Confirm and document responsibilities between front office, middle office, legal, and compliance teams for identifying threshold crossings and initiating notifications to issuers and BaFin.
• Implement a control framework that ensures voting rights notifications are drafted, approved, and submitted to issuers and BaFin within four trading days of the triggering event.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c...
• [2] bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Massnahmen/40c...
• [3] suss.com/tw/news/voting-rights/van-lanschot-kempen-invest...
• [4] bafin.de/EN/die-bafin/die-bafin_node_en.html
• [5] suss.com/en/investor-relations/voting-rights/suss-microte...
• [6] vanlanschotkempen.com/-/media/files/privacy-statements/pr...
• [7] vanlanschotkempen.com/en-nl/investment-management/contact...
• [8] vanlanschotkempen.com/en-gb/investment-management/security

What Changed

• - The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
• The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
• For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
• The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
• The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...

Suggested Considerations

• DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
• DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
• FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
• Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/cftcs-incr...
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases
• [3] cftc.gov/PressRoom/index.htm
• [4] cftc.gov
• [5] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases?page=4
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/giancarlostatement07...
• [7] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8188-20
• [8] cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opabehnam35

What Changed

• - ESMA clarifies what constitutes a “defined ranking system” under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), including when rating scales, score bands or league tables will be regarded as a ranking...
• ESMA sets out transitional provisions for existing ESG rating providers active before ESGRR application, detailing conditions and timelines under which they may continue operating while completing...
• ESMA explains how ESG rating providers established after the ESGRR date of entry into force must comply, including the need to obtain authorisation/registration before commencing activity in the EU...
• ESMA defines what qualifies as “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers under ESGRR, indicating the types of changes (e.g.
• Under MAR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957, ESMA clarifies expectations regarding the annually conducted audit of market soundings arrangements, including scope, independence of the...

Suggested Considerations

• Map all existing and planned ESG rating products against ESMA’s clarified concept of a “defined ranking system” and update methodologies, scales, and disclosures to ensure they meet ESGRR and Q&A expectations.
• For ESG rating providers operating before 02 July 2026, develop and execute a documented transitional compliance plan that aligns governance, methodologies, data controls and transparency with ESGRR, ensuring timely notification to ESMA within one month from 02 July 2026.
• For entities intending to launch ESG rating activities after ESGRR entry into force, prepare and submit complete authorisation or registration files to ESMA before commencing rating activity, incorporating the Q&A guidance on initial registration requirements.
• Establish or enhance a formal process to identify, assess and record “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers, and implement controls to ensure ESMA is notified within required timelines before or immediately after such changes, as specified in the Q&A.
• Review and update MAR compliance frameworks, with particular focus on market soundings procedures, to incorporate ESMA’s expectations on the scope, independence, and documentation of the annually conducted audit required under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957.

Key Dates

References

• [1] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-26
• [2] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qa-tool-launched
• [3] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-19
• [4] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-new-qa...
• [5] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qas-available-23
• [6] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/new-qa-available
• [7] esma.europa.eu/press-news/consultations
• [8] centralbank.ie/regulation/markets-update/esma-guidelines-...

What Changed

• - The decision reiterates and operationalises the definition of “inside information” under the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014), confirming that information relating to a...
• The Enforcement Committee shows that it will infer possession and use of inside information from a combination of factors (plausible transmission channels, atypical trading patterns, timing around...
• The decision confirms that the use of inside information through trading on own account and on the account of closely related persons (spouse, parent) will be treated as separate instances of misuse...
• The Committee explicitly treats recommendations to invest made on the basis of inside information as a distinct form of insider dealing, exposing the recommender to sanctions even if they do not...
• The ruling reinforces that relatives and close associates (here, cousins) who act on such recommendations can be sanctioned for insider dealing, even when they are not employees or insiders of the...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update MAR market abuse policies to explicitly cover the prohibition on recommending or inducing others to trade on the basis of inside information, including for non-staff related persons.
• Enhance insider dealing surveillance scenarios to capture atypical trading patterns before takeover or M&A announcements, including trading by retail clients and accounts linked to employees’ family members where identifiable.
• Tighten procedures for the management of inside information during corporate transactions (takeovers, mergers, acquisitions), including clear designation of insiders, controlled information flows, and logging of who is aware of pending deals.
• Strengthen controls around potential transmission channels for inside information, including guidance and monitoring for staff who may informally share information with relatives or friends, and explicitly prohibit such behaviour in codes of conduct.
• Provide targeted MAR training to staff, senior management, and high‑risk functions (M&A, corporate finance, strategy, legal, finance) that uses this case as an example of how the AMF infers insider dealing and the consequences for both insiders and relatives.

Key Dates

References

• [1] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-new...
• [2] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [3] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [4] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [5] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [6] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [7] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...
• [8] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforce...

What Changed

• - The conviction reinforces the SFC’s enforcement position that “counselling or procuring” another person to trade, including a close family member, while in possession of inside information...
• The case highlights that use of personal communication channels (e.g., WhatsApp) to direct trading can be decisive evidence in insider dealing prosecutions, increasing expectations that firms monitor...
• The conviction confirms that controlling shareholders and chairpersons of Hong Kong–listed companies are expected to treat negotiations for disposal of control stakes, memoranda of understanding...
• The SFC has publicly quantified the estimated illicit profits (over HK$1 million) earned via the relative’s trading, signalling a continued focus on disgorgement and benefit analysis in enforcement...
• The case continues the SFC’s trend of using criminal prosecution, rather than solely civil Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings, for insider dealing involving abuse of senior positions and close...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update insider dealing and market misconduct policies to explicitly cover “counselling or procuring” trading by family members, nominees, and other connected persons, in line with Part XIII and Part XIV of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571).
• Update staff and director training materials to include concrete examples of prohibited conduct, including funding relatives’ accounts and giving trading instructions via messaging apps while in possession of inside information about control transactions, MOUs, or earnest money arrangements.
• Strengthen personal account dealing policies to require pre‑clearance and enhanced scrutiny for trades in securities of issuers where the employee, director, or major shareholder is directly or indirectly involved in control stake negotiations or other price‑sensitive corporate events.
• Implement or enhance procedures to identify and log potential inside information events (such as MOUs for stake sales, receipt of earnest money, or other significant transaction milestones) and to trigger trading blackouts for relevant insiders and their close associates.
• Conduct targeted thematic reviews of recent and ongoing corporate finance mandates and control stake transactions handled by the firm to identify any gaps in information barriers, wall‑crossing procedures, or monitoring of insiders’ and their relatives’ trading activities.

Key Dates

References

• [1] scmp.com/business/article/3300417/sfc-starts-insider-case...
• [2] fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/hk-regulator-commen...
• [3] english.dotdotnews.com/a/202508/26/AP68ad23a4e4b08d290534...
• [4] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announce...
• [5] sfc.hk/en/SFC-Search/Search?text=Pak&ui_lang=tc

What Changed

• - The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
• The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
• The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
• The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
• The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
• Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
• Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
• Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
• Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.

Key Dates

References

• [1] jdsupra.com/legalnews/cftc-s-division-of-enforcement-issu...
• [2] cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2...
• [3] skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2020/11/cftc-issue...
• [4] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/03/us-cftc-enforc...
• [5] cftc.gov/media/11821/EnfAdv_Resolutions022525/download
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases
• [7] morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/03/cftc-enforcement-replaces-pr...
• [8] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrenforce...