Market Abuse / Surveillance

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...

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement precedent affirming existing rules under the Monetary and Financial Code (CMF), specifically Article L.642-2, which criminalizes obstruction of AMF inspections or investigations, including refusing access during authorized house searches. The ruling reiterates that even initial refusal of access constitutes obstruction, with courts upholding AMF operations via prior judicial authorization from the *Juge des Libertés et de la Détention*. It highlights dual administrative and criminal tracks, though a 2022 Constitutional Court decision (QPC no.

Suggested Considerations

• Immediate training: Conduct firm-wide sessions on AMF inspection protocols, emphasizing mandatory cooperation, document access, and avoiding any delay or refusal (e.g., scripted responses for employee interactions).
• Policy updates: Revise compliance manuals to explicitly prohibit obstruction, including scenarios like home searches for remote workers; designate 24/7 points of contact for AMF visits.
• Mock drills: Simulate AMF searches at offices and residences to test response times and access protocols.
• Legal readiness: Retain counsel experienced in CMF Article L.642-2 matters; pre-approve cooperation clauses in employee contracts.
• Reporting: Enhance internal surveillance to detect potential market abuse early, reducing investigation risks.

Key Dates

References

• [1] navacelle.law/sanctioning-obstructions-to-amf-investigati...
• [2] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-new...
• [3] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/pump-and-dump-pr...
• [4] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-new...
• [5] navacelle.law/the-paris-criminal-court-issues-its-first-d...
• [6] mlex.com/mlex/financial-services/articles/2465773/france-...
• [7] practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/international...
• [8] debevoise.com/-/media/files/pdf/bc22_chapter-12--france.p...

What Changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested Considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9124-25
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9148-25
• [3] forkeylaw.com/blog/categories/cftc-enforcement-actions/
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases?c=1180800&page=105

What Changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Suggested Considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9208-26
• [2] tradeinformer.com/regulations/cftc-arizona-prediction-mar...
• [3] gamingintelligence.com/legal/228985-cftc-intervenes-in-ar...
• [4] news.bitcoin.com/cftc-seeks-injunction-restraining-order-...
• [5] complianceweek.com/regulatory-enforcement/cftc-sues-state...
• [6] grcreport.com/post/cftc-asks-court-to-step-in-as-arizona-...
• [7] mlex.com/articles/2463704/us-cftc-seeks-injunction-to-sto...

What Changed

• The newsletter highlights no immediate binding rules but flags forthcoming or proposed changes via publications:
• Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities (TRV) Report 2026: Identifies high-risk EU financial markets, urging heightened risk monitoring.[User Query]
• Annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments: Updates pre- and post-trade transparency thresholds, published 27 February 2026.[User Query]
• Joint EBA-ESMA consultation on revised suitability assessment: Proposes updates to requirements for banks and investment firms on assessing client knowledge and needs under MiFID II.[User Query]
• ESMA proposals to simplify MiFID II/MiFIR obligations on market data: Aims to streamline reporting and data access burdens.[User Query]

Suggested Considerations

• Review and implement transparency calculations: Adjust trading systems and disclosures for equity/equity-like instruments per 27 February 2026 publication.
• Respond to consultations: Submit feedback on suitability (by 25 May 2026), EMIR 3 (20 April), MAR delays (29 April), CCP collateral (30 April); attend 15 April hearing.
• Assess TRV risks: Conduct internal risk reviews aligning with high-risk market warnings; update policies on retail investor journeys and fund costs.[User Query]
• Update compliance programs: Incorporate MiFID II/MiFIR simplification proposals, Listing Act statement, market abuse guidelines, EMIR 3, sustainability reporting, and new Q&As.[User Query]
• Monitor enforcement: Review supervisory actions for peer benchmarks (e.g., similar to prior MFSA review).

Key Dates

References

• [1] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-latest...
• [2] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-latest...
• [3] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-publishes-latest...
• [4] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news
• [5] esma.europa.eu/news-publications/newsletter
• [6] euagenda.eu/news/908208
• [7] esma.europa.eu/form/newsletter
• [8] esma.europa.eu

What Changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Suggested Considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9208-26
• [2] espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/48379446/cftc-sues-arizo...
• [3] lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/fintech-five-apr...

What Changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements in this announcement; it is a personnel appointment rather than a rulemaking or policy shift. However, SEC Chairman Atkins highlighted the Division's ongoing "course correction" to prioritize cases aligned with congressional intent for meaningful investor protection and market integrity, moving away from prior Gensler-era emphases. Woodcock's background in securities enforcement, financial reporting, and audit task forces suggests potential heightened scrutiny in those areas, though no specific mandates are outlined.

Suggested Considerations

• Review current exposure to SEC enforcement matters, particularly in financial reporting, accounting, and disclosures, in light of Woodcock's expertise.
• Monitor SEC announcements post-May 4, 2026, for signals on evolving priorities, such as reduced crypto focus or enhanced fraud detection.
• Enhance internal compliance training on investor protection and market integrity cases, aligning with the stated "course correction."
• Engage external counsel familiar with Woodcock's tenure (e.g., Gibson Dunn alumni or Fort Worth Regional Office veterans) for strategic advice.

Key Dates

References

• [1] wealthmanagement.com/regulation-compliance/sec_names_gibs...
• [2] news.bitcoin.com/david-woodcock-named-sec-enforcement-chi...
• [3] tradersmagazine.com/xtra/sec-appoints-david-woodcock-as-d...
• [4] blockonomi.com/sec-names-david-woodcock-as-enforcement-ch...
• [5] citybiz.co/article/829974/sec-appoints-david-woodcock-as-...
• [6] newsfilecorp.com/release/291656/SEC-Appoints-David-Woodco...
• [7] hklaw.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2026/04/us-sec-taps-gibs...
• [8] wmbdradio.com/2026/04/08/us-sec-taps-gibson-dunn-attorney...

What Changed

• This is not a rulemaking publication introducing new regulations but an annual enforcement summary reflecting operational shifts rather than formal regulatory changes. Key developments include:
• Enforcement volume decline: 313 standalone actions (down 27% from 431 in FY 2024), with only 4 new actions against public companies post-January 20, 2025 (93% of 56 public company cases initiated...
• Monetary penalties reduced: $808 million in settlements (lowest since 2012) and record-low $108 million in disgorgement.
• Policy shifts: Dismissals of high-profile crypto cases (e.g., Coinbase, Binance); new task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud; emphasis on "bread-and-butter" cases like offering fraud, insider...
• Leadership and staffing impact: Post-Gensler transition (Uyeda as Acting Chair, Atkins sworn in April 2025); ~15% Enforcement staff reduction; record Q1 actions (200 total, October-December 2024)...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and strengthen controls around core risks: insider trading, offering fraud, fiduciary duties, and retail investor disclosures.
• Self-assess exposure to legacy Gensler-era cases, especially crypto-related, anticipating potential dismissals or settlements.
• Enhance self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation protocols, as SEC continues to credit these in resolutions.
• Monitor SEC task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud for emerging priorities.
• Update firm-wide risk assessments to deprioritize novel theories (e.g., shadow trading) in favor of traditional misconduct.

Key Dates

References

• [1] corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/01/21/sec-enforcement-2025-y...
• [2] whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-fy-2025-review-transforma...
• [3] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-26
• [4] brattle.com/insights-events/publications/sec-enforcement-...
• [5] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/12/sec-enforcemen...
• [6] gibsondunn.com/securities-enforcement-2025-year-end-update/
• [7] clearyenforcementwatch.com/2026/01/the-shifting-sec-enfor...
• [8] sec.gov/files/fy25-oiad-sar-activities.pdf

What Changed

• - Mandatory pre-authorization engagement: Data contributors (trading venues and APAs) must cooperate with selected CTPs *before* formal CTP authorization to set up data transmission, including...
• CTP confidentiality obligations: Selected CTPs must implement safeguards for data confidentiality and integrity during preparatory phases.[User Query]
• Legal obligation reinforcement: ESMA and NCAs remind that data contribution to CTPs is a binding requirement from CT go-live, tied to MiFIR.[User Query] No new rules are introduced; this clarifies...

Suggested Considerations

• For data contributors: Immediately engage selected CTPs (EuroCTP, fairCT; derivatives post-selection) to agree transmission protocols, conduct connectivity testing, and complete end-to-end testing before 01 April 2026 go-live.[User Query]
• For CTPs: Deploy confidentiality/integrity safeguards for pre-authorization data; prepare operational rules per Q&As (accessible via ESMA's online tool).[User Query]
• For all firms: Review ESMA Q&As via online tool; update internal policies, IT systems, and vendor contracts for CT compliance; coordinate with NCAs if needed.[User Query]
• Document cooperation efforts to demonstrate readiness during ESMA/NCAs supervision.

Key Dates

References

• [1] assetservicingtimes.com/assetservicesnews/regulationartic...
• [2] esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/markets-and-infrastructur...
• [3] esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-10/Newsletter_Sep...
• [4] esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-launches-selecti...
• [5] thetradenews.com/esma-launches-initial-selection-process-...
• [6] mapsplatis.com/news/regulatory-roundup/january-2026-regul...
• [7] jdsupra.com/legalnews/technical-standards-on-consolidated...
• [8] regulationtomorrow.com/2025/06/esma-launches-selection-of...

What Changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...

Suggested Considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

Key Dates

References

• [1] steel-eye.com/news/north-american-regulatory-priorities-f...
• [2] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/CFTC_FY2026_Presidents_Budge...
• [3] cohenmilstein.com/cftc-priorities-modernization-harmoniza...
• [4] beneschlaw.com/insight/ftc-enforcement-trends-in-2026-wha...
• [5] foley.com/insights/publications/2026/01/shifting-enforcem...
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [7] ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/enforcement-priorities-...

What Changed

• - Permanent Injunction: Peken Global is barred from future violations, specifically prohibiting U.S. participants from direct trading on its electronic trading and order-matching system without FBOT...
• Civil Penalty: $500,000 payment required; no disgorgement sought due to cooperation in CFTC investigation and related criminal proceedings (United States v. Flashdot Limited, et al., No.
• Dismissals: Voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited; dismissal of CFTC complaint counts II-V against Peken Global,...
• No new broad regulatory rules, but underscores CEA violations for off-exchange commodity futures, leveraged retail transactions, and unregistered FCM/SEF/DCM operations.

Suggested Considerations

• Verify Registration Status: Foreign platforms must confirm CFTC registration as FBOT if offering direct access to U.S. participants for futures/swaps/derivatives; implement geo-blocks or KYC to exclude U.S. users.[1 from provided content]
• Restrict U.S. Access: Proactively block U.S. IP addresses, require attestations of non-U.S. residency, and monitor for circumvention.
• Pay Penalties: Peken Global must remit $500,000 civil penalty per court order.
• Enhance Supervision/CIP: Implement effective customer identification programs (CIP) and supervision of activities, avoiding off-exchange leveraged retail commodity transactions.
• Monitor Affiliates: Dissolved entities (e.g., Mek Global, PhoenixFin) or non-operational parents (Flashdot) should ensure no residual U.S. exposure.

Key Dates

References

• [1] fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/new-neuf/nr/2025-09-25-eng
• [2] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/EnforcementActions/index.htm
• [3] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8884-24
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [5] fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/cftc-reengages-in-d...
• [6] usaherald.com/cftc-mek-global-settlement-nears-in-kucoin-...
• [7] opensanctions.org/entities/us-cftc-2ab1ed098a80f19db560f5...
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/doj-and-cftc-bring-charges-against-...

What Changed

• The enforcement action does not introduce new regulatory requirements but rather clarifies BaFin's enforcement posture regarding existing obligations under sections 33 et seq. of the WpHG.
• Notification thresholds: Shareholders must notify when voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50%, or 75%
• Notification timeline: Notifications must be submitted to both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days of the threshold event
• Scope expansion: Notifications apply to direct share holdings and certain financial instruments creating economic interest in shares
• Enforcement basis: BaFin can impose fines for individual contraventions or for breach of supervisory duties (failure to implement adequate organizational measures)

Suggested Considerations

• *Audit existing processes: Conduct a comprehensive review of voting rights notification procedures, particularly for German-listed issuers, to identify any gaps or delays in submission timelines
• *Strengthen monitoring systems: Implement automated systems to track threshold events in real-time and flag notifications due within the four-trading-day window
• *Enhance organizational controls: Establish clear internal procedures, segregation of duties, and escalation protocols to prevent notification delays—BaFin specifically cited inadequate organizational measures in this case
• *Verify submission records: Maintain comprehensive documentation of all notifications submitted to BaFin and issuers, including timestamps and confirmation of receipt
• *Train relevant personnel: Ensure trading, portfolio management, and compliance teams understand the notification obligations and their respective responsibilities

Key Dates

References

• [1] telekom.com/en/investor-relations/investor-relations/noti...
• [2] fuchs.com/group/investor-relations/statutory-publications...
• [3] klgates.com/Germany-Tightens-Voting-Rights-Disclosure-10-...
• [4] cms.law/en/deu/legal-updates/german-securities-trading-ac...
• [5] jdsupra.com/legalnews/amendments-to-the-german-voting-rig...
• [6] gerresheimer.com/en/investors/corporate-governance/voting...

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement case reaffirming existing MAR requirements under Article 17(1), first subparagraph, which mandates immediate public disclosure of inside information. Inside information is defined as precise, non-public information relating to issuers or financial instruments that, if made public, would likely significantly affect prices. Significant deviations from market expectations in financial results qualify as such, requiring disclosure without delay to prevent insider trading advantages and ensure informed investor decisions.

Suggested Considerations

• Implement or enhance inside information monitoring processes: Establish clear criteria for identifying "significant deviations" from market expectations in financial results, consensus forecasts, or guidance.
• Strengthen ad hoc disclosure protocols: Ensure immediate (without undue delay) publication via approved channels upon identification of inside information; document decision timelines.
• Conduct internal audits and training: Review past disclosures for similar lapses; train IR and finance teams on MAR Article 17(1) and BaFin guidance.
• Scenario testing: Simulate earnings surprises to test disclosure speed and escalation procedures.
• Monitor BaFin enforcement trends: Affected firms under similar obligations should assess exposure and prepare for potential inspections.

Key Dates

References

• [1] schaeffler.com/en/investor-relations/general-meeting/annu...
• [2] changeflow.com/govping/banking-finance/bafin-fines-a-i-s-...
• [3] regulationtomorrow.com/2026/02/risks-in-bafins-focus-2026/
• [4] schaeffler.com/en/investor-relations/events-publications/...
• [5] regulationtomorrow.com/2026/03/bafin-has-partially-revoke...

What Changed

No new regulatory requirements or amendments to the SFO are introduced; this is an enforcement action reaffirming existing prohibitions. It highlights section 300 (securities fraud via false representations enabling illegal short selling) and links to section 170(1) SFO, which criminalizes selling securities without a presently exercisable and unconditional right to vest them in the purchaser (max penalty: HK$100,000 fine, 2 years imprisonment)[https://apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements/news/doc?refNo=26PR45]. The District Court venue (vs.

Suggested Considerations

• Review and strengthen pre-trade controls to verify sellers' rights to shares (e.g., locate-and-confirm processes) before executing orders.
• Enhance surveillance systems for red flags like unusual short positions, bonus share mishandling, or premature placing share sales.
• Conduct staff training on SFO sections 170 and 300, including 2003 SFC Guidance Note on Short Selling.
• Audit client representations and internal booking systems; report incidents promptly to SFC as in SFM case.
• Update compliance manuals to reference bail conditions (e.g., travel restrictions) as indicators of high-risk clients[https://apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements/news/doc?refNo=26PR45].

Key Dates

References

• [1] solutions-atlantic.com/hong-kong-sfc-illegal-short-sellin...
• [2] tannerdewitt.com/zh-hans/legal-update-sfc-reprimands-and-...
• [3] solutions-atlantic.com/hong-kong-sfc-short-selling-fraud-...
• [4] conventuslaw.com/report/hong-kong-another-reminder-that-t...
• [5] privatebankerinternational.com/news/premature-selling-of-...
• [6] apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announce...
• [7] boasecohencollins.com/zh-hant/%E7%B6%B2%E8%AA%8C/unlawful...
• [8] aoshearman.com/en/insights/cross-border-white-collar-crim...

What Changed

• This is an enforcement decision, not a new rule or circular introducing regulatory changes. It reinforces existing requirements under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), particularly:
• Prohibitions on matched trades (defined as coordinated buy-sell transactions at non-market prices creating false trading appearances, per Note 2 in the publication), which can distort price formation...
• Staff dealing policies mandating full disclosure of personal accounts, beneficial ownership, and trading activities; concealment via false declarations breaches fitness and properness standards for...
• Accountability for responsible officers (ROs) in Type 1 (dealing in securities) and Type 2 (dealing in futures contracts) activities, where proprietary trading must not favor personal interests over...

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct immediate staff dealing audits: Review disclosures for accuracy, verify beneficial ownership in spouse/associate accounts, and cross-check against trading records (https://apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements/news/doc?refNo=26PR44).
• Enhance trading surveillance: Implement real-time monitoring for matched trades (e.g., coordinated patterns outside bid-ask spreads in derivatives like Hang Seng Index options); flag proprietary vs. personal account interactions.
• Update internal policies: Strengthen RO oversight, mandatory training on SFO market misconduct rules, and escalation protocols for false declarations.
• Firm-wide attestation: Require annual (or more frequent) certifications of no undisclosed accounts; integrate with pre-trade controls.
• Risk assess proprietary trading: Segregate duties to prevent self-dealing; report suspicious patterns to SFC promptly.

Key Dates

References

• [1] changeflow.com/govping/securities-markets/sfc-announces-n...
• [2] sfc.hk/en/
• [3] charltonslaw.com/hong-kong-law/market-misconduct-under-th...
• [4] sfc.hk/en/News-and-announcements/News/Enforcement-news
• [5] sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements...
• [6] sfipc.org.tw/en/News.aspx?n=7621&sms=12374
• [7] thinkadvisor.com/2026/03/17/inside-the-2026-enforcement-m...
• [8] www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2025/0618/20250...

What Changed

• No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is an enforcement of existing WpHG requirements. Key obligations reaffirmed:
• Issuers of securities traded on organized markets in Germany must publish an announcement stating the date from which and website where half-yearly financial reports are publicly available on the...
• Announcements must be made no later than three months after the end of the reporting period (e.g., for H1 2024, by 30 September 2024) and before the report's first public availability.
• Purpose: Ensure simultaneous access for stakeholders to financial information on net assets, financial position, results, forecasts, opportunities, and risks, supporting informed investment decisions.
• Violations trigger administrative fines by BaFin, with maximums of €10 million or 5% of total revenue.

Suggested Considerations

• Implement automated monitoring and calendar systems to track half-yearly report preparation and ensure announcements are drafted/published before report release and within three months post-period.
• Integrate with Unternehmensregister filings; designate specific websites for report access and confirm public availability dates in announcements.
• Establish compliance function oversight per MaComp (e.g., risk assessments, reporting to management) to prevent lapses, including insider lists and ad-hoc disclosure procedures under WpHG Sections 12-14, 26.
• Conduct internal audits of past disclosures; train IR/compliance teams on WpHG transparency rules; use tools for WpHG automation (e.g., insider trading prevention, disclosures).
• Report violations promptly via BaFin whistleblower channel if detected.

Key Dates

References

• [1] matproof.com/blog/wphg-compliance-automatisierung
• [2] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@otherif/d...
• [3] cdn.dam.union-investment.de/513974_WPHG_Infoblatt_2020_NC...
• [4] clearygottlieb.com/~/media/organize-archive/cgsh/files/pu...
• [5] steel-eye.com/news/bafin-record-keeping-requirements
• [6] cms.law/en/deu/regulatory-news/bafin-consultation-on-amen...

What Changed

Rule 15c2-11 requires broker-dealers to review current, publicly available issuer information (e.g., via EDGAR or issuer websites) before publishing or submitting quotations for OTC securities, with exceptions like piggybacking limited to scenarios with one-way priced quotes, post-trading suspension restrictions (60 days), and time-bound quoting for shell companies (18 months).

Suggested Considerations

• Review processes: Broker-dealers must verify current issuer info (financials for last 2 years, filings) is publicly available (EDGAR/website) before quoting; annual checks for Phase 3 fixed income.
• Exception compliance: Limit piggyback to priced quotes, avoid 60-day post-suspension, cap shell quoting at 18 months.
• Systems updates: Implement OTC quote surveillance for fixed income/private securities; document reviews.
• Issuer coordination: OTC issuers ensure info on EDGAR/website; monitor no-action phases.
• Comment submission: Firms respond to proposal via SEC portal during consultation.

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020-212
• [2] acaglobal.com/insights/sec-no-action-letter-regarding-ame...
• [3] gibsondunn.com/recent-sec-interpretation-of-exchange-act-...
• [4] freewritings.law/2020/09/sec-amends-rule-15c2-11/
• [5] ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subpart-A/s...
• [6] finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/reports/2024-finra-annu...
• [7] otcmarkets.com/learn/15c2-11-resource-center
• [8] dwt.com/blogs/financial-services-law-advisor/2024/11/new-...

What Changed

• This is not a new regulation but an enforcement extension; no broad regulatory changes are introduced. Key elements include:
• Extension of trading suspension from March 13, 2026, to April 10, 2026, to allow continued AMF analysis of price manipulation indicators.
• Reiterated definition and warning on pump and dump schemes, involving unauthorized promotions without disclosure of promoters' holdings, leading to artificial price inflation followed by dumps.
• Invocation of MAR (Market Abuse Regulation) principles, aligned with EU standards, emphasizing orderly market operations and investor protection.

Suggested Considerations

• Trading venues (e.g., Euronext): Implement and maintain suspension of RAPID NUTRITION shares until April 10, 2026, or AMF notice.
• Firms under AMF jurisdiction: Review trading surveillance systems for pump-and-dump signals (e.g., aggressive social media/email pitches promising quick gains); ensure no facilitation of unauthorized recommendations.
• Investors: Preserve all pitch documents (screenshots, emails, messages) and submit to AMF via Epargne Info Service platform or phone.
• Compliance teams: Conduct immediate audits of client communications and holdings in similar volatile stocks; train staff on MAR obligations for disclosing positions in recommendations.
• No new reporting deadlines, but proactive evidence submission is urged.

Key Dates

References

• [1] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-req...
• [2] amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/amf-new...
• [3] marketscreener.com/news/rapid-nutrition-shares-suspended-...
• [4] marketscreener.com/news/rapid-nutrition-stock-suspended-a...
• [5] stocktitan.net/news/2026-03-11/
• [6] dividendchannel.com/quotes/?a=news&ticker=a&w=&story=2026...

What Changed

• This ANPRM proposes no immediate changes, as it is an early-stage consultation seeking input on:
• Application of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) core principles and existing CFTC regulations to prediction markets.
• Criteria for prohibiting event contracts deemed contrary to the public interest (e.g., potentially sports, politics, or sensitive topics like government employee outcomes).
• Cost-benefit analyses for regulating prediction markets. It builds on prior actions, including withdrawal of a 2024 proposed ban on certain event contracts and a 2025 staff advisory on sports-related...

Suggested Considerations

• Submit comments: Affected parties should prepare and file written comments within 45 days via the CFTC Public Comments Portal, addressing ANPRM questions on CEA principles, prohibited contracts, and costs/benefits.
• Monitor developments: Track Federal Register publication, related litigation (e.g., state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction), and CFTC Enforcement Division advisories. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26)

Key Dates

References

• [1] bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2026/02/united-...
• [2] paulweiss.com/insights/client-memos/cftc-chairman-outline...
• [3] corporatecomplianceinsights.com/cftc-withdraws-proposed-r...
• [4] quickreads.ext.katten.com/post/102mkjy/know-the-outcome-d...
• [5] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [7] next.io/news/regulation/cftc-chief-signals-imminent-predi...