Market Abuse / Surveillance

Key dates

2026-08-27

JFSA published the revision and added Question 7 to the Q&A on Financial Instruments Business.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify all overseas-listed ETFs distributed or made available to Japanese customers and isolate products with a single Japanese-company equity exposure and leveraged or inverse performance objectives.
• Compliance teams may wish to suspend onboarding, marketing, solicitation, and new sales of affected products pending a documented legal and compliance assessment of the revised Question 7 and any follow-up JFSA communications.
• Firms should review whether existing distribution arrangements, product lists, customer disclosures, suitability controls, and overseas-product filing processes remain defensible in light of the JFSA’s public-interest position.
• Broker-dealers should assess whether affected products can remain accessible on an execution-only basis, including the risk that continued availability could be viewed as distribution or otherwise inconsistent with the JFSA’s stated view.
• Firms should obtain product-level information on the reference asset, leverage or inverse multiple, daily reset methodology, derivatives and rebalancing arrangements, listing venue, and Japanese investor access channels.
• Market surveillance and product-governance teams may wish to evaluate whether distribution of affected products could contribute to volatility, disorderly trading, or concerns about price formation in the Japanese underlying shares.
• Senior management should document escalation, inventory decisions, customer communications, and any decision to close or restrict positions, while monitoring for amendments to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act framework, supervisory guidelines, or additional JFSA expectations.

What changed

The JFSA added Question 7 to its Q&A on Financial Instruments Business. The revised guidance expresses the JFSA’s view that distributing overseas single-stock leveraged ETFs whose underlying assets are shares of Japanese companies is not in the public interest because the products may amplify fluctuations in the prices of the underlying shares listed on Japanese exchanges and may significantly affect price formation in Japan’s financial markets.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

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

2026-10-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-19

CFTC issued Release 9286-26 and announced the request for comment on listing compute derivatives contracts.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether the firm has direct or indirect exposure to compute cash markets, proposed compute futures, perpetual futures, benchmark administration, clearing, brokerage, or related trading activity.
• Firms considering submitting comments should assess the CFTC questions concerning cash-market size and liquidity, contract specifications, price formation, benchmark representativeness, settlement and rollover mechanics, manipulation scenarios, customer protection, and the risks of perpetual contracts.
• Potential contract venues and intermediaries should consider documenting how existing CFTC requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38 could apply to product submission, exchange oversight, market surveillance, position management, reporting, risk management, and customer funds.
• Trading and surveillance functions may wish to evaluate potential abusive strategies involving GPU capacity reservations, cloud allocation, data-centre outages, energy constraints, benchmark inputs, wash trading, spoofing, corners, squeezes, and manipulation of physical or reference markets.
• Firms should monitor the Federal Register and Regulations.gov for the publication date, final comment deadline, any technical corrections, and subsequent CFTC guidance or contract-approval filings.
• Market participants may wish to avoid treating the press release or request for comment as evidence that compute derivatives are already approved or that a reported exchange launch date is assured.
• Governance teams may wish to assign ownership across legal, commodities compliance, market surveillance, model risk, technology risk, procurement, and business teams because compute derivatives would connect financial-market controls with operational characteristics of cloud and data-centre markets.

What changed

The CFTC opened a public consultation under RIN 3038-AF77 concerning compute cash markets and potential compute derivatives contracts. The request seeks information on market size, liquidity, contract design, market oversight, manipulation risks, customer protection, and perpetual compute futures, and is associated with potential amendments or application of the CFTC framework in 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38. It does not itself approve a compute futures contract, authorize an exchange to list one, impose new compliance obligations, or establish a final regulatory position.

Key dates

2022-12-23

The SDNY entered the initial consent orders finding Ellison liable on two CFTC fraud counts and Wang liable on one fraud count; the trading and registration bans run from this date.

2026-08-19

The CFTC announced entry of the supplemental consent orders, continued cooperation requirements, and final sanctions resolving its enforcement actions against Ellison and Wang.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update individual sanctions, registration-eligibility, and trading-eligibility records for Ellison and Wang, using December 23, 2022 as the start date for the applicable bans.
• CFTC registrants should consider screening applicants, employees, directors, officers, consultants, and controlled-account traders against the specific five-year trading prohibitions and registration prohibitions before permitting covered activity.
• Firms should consider obtaining and reviewing the operative supplemental and initial consent orders to determine the precise scope of prohibited trading, registration, and cooperation-related provisions rather than relying only on the press release.
• Digital asset and derivatives firms may wish to retain evidence of due diligence and escalation decisions concerning former FTX or Alameda personnel, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the resolution's treatment of substantial cooperation and the absence of additional monetary relief creates a relevant precedent for internal investigations, voluntary cooperation, document preservation, and regulator-engagement protocols.
• Firms should continue treating the permanent antifraud injunctions under Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) and CFTC Regulation 180.1 as conduct restrictions applicable to Ellison and Wang; the resolution does not create a general exemption from those provisions for other market participants.
• Affected firms may wish to coordinate CFTC, SEC, bankruptcy, and criminal-case screening because the CFTC sanctions are distinct from the SEC officer-and-director restrictions and the criminal forfeiture order.

What changed

The supplemental consent orders finalize the CFTC's actions against Ellison and Wang in conjunction with their initial December 23, 2022 consent orders. Ellison is subject to a five-year trading ban and a 10-year registration ban; Wang is subject to a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the Commission and remain permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions charged under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The bans run from the date of the initial consent orders rather than from August 19, 2026.

Key dates

2026-08-06

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

2026-10-05 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / 2027)

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

TBD (mid‑2026) Deadline

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

30 July 2026

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

TBD (60 days after Federal Register publication)

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

31 December 2023

(assumed financial year end for 2023) – End of the 2023 financial year for Leo International Precision Health AG, starting the four‑month period for the annual financial information announcement

30 April 2024

– Latest permissible date for publishing the announcement stating from which date and at which web address the 2023 annual financial information is made publicly available (four months after year‑end)

30 June 2024

– Latest permissible date for publishing the half‑yearly financial report for the first half of the 2024 financial year (three months after the end of the reporting period, assuming 31 March 2024 as period end)

08 July 2026 Deadline

– BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €20,000 on Leo International Precision Health AG for failure to publish the required annual announcement for 2023 and the half‑yearly financial report for 2024 within the prescribed periods

30 July 2026

– Public announcement by BaFin of the enforcement measure and fine against Leo International Precision Health AG

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.

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...

Key dates

27 April 2012

- CISIAM became licensed under the Securities and Futures Ordinance to carry on Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities

03 June 2013

- CISIAM obtained a licence to carry on Type 5 (advising on futures contracts) regulated activity

August 2019

- Start of the period during which CISIAM’s failures as fund manager occurred in relation to the Tahoe Life‑related private fund

September 2020

- End of the period during which CISIAM’s failures in managing the private fund took place

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.

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...

Key dates

01 November 2023 Deadline

– Start of the period during which BSSIHK allowed wash trades to be executed due to inadequate internal controls

March 2024

– BSSIHK introduced a pre‑trade interception arrangement for wash trades, which the SFC later found to be insufficient because it relied mainly on manual intervention and only after repeated wash trade instances

13 September 2025

– End of the period examined by the SFC during which 1,021 pairs of wash trades were executed through BSSIHK client accounts

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.

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...

Key dates

22 June 2026

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

26 July 2026 Deadline

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

26 August 2026 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

August 2025

- The relevant shareholder failed to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed four‑trading‑day period after crossing thresholds in the issuer

15 July 2026 Deadline

- BaFin imposed two administrative fines of €55,000 each on the natural person for non‑compliance with voting rights notification obligations under sections 33 et seq. WpHG

23 July 2026

- BaFin published the anonymised enforcement measure, indicating that an appeal against the administrative fine order may be lodged

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.

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.

Key dates

28 March 2024

- EU‑level PFOF prohibition under revised MiFIR enters into force, generally banning payment for order flow in the EU, subject to transitional national exemptions

30 June 2026

- German national exemption allowing PFOF for orders from in‑country clients to in‑country firms expires; after this date no new orders may rely on the exemption

01 July 2026

- Full application of the PFOF ban to German clients and German‑authorised firms; credit institutions and investment firms are prohibited from accepting any third‑party payments or benefits for forwarding client orders, and BaFin’s supervisory statement takes practical effect

22 July 2026

- BaFin publishes its supervisory statement specifying rules for neobrokers and other firms on how to comply with the PFOF ban and explaining ESMA’s interpretative decisions and consumer impacts

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.

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...

Key dates

16 March 2026

- Judge Margaret A. Ryan’s resignation as Director of the Division of Enforcement becomes effective, and Principal Deputy Director Sam Waldon is named Acting Director of Enforcement

Early April 2026

- David Woodcock is named permanent Director of the Division of Enforcement, succeeding Judge Ryan

31 July 2026

- Principal Deputy Director of Enforcement Sam Waldon departs the SEC after more than 14 years at the agency; his successor assumes the role of Principal Deputy Director

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.

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,...

Key dates

10 July 2026

- BaFin imposes administrative fines totaling €187,500 on Brown Capital Management LLC for failures to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period under WpHG

22 July 2026 Deadline

- BaFin publicly announces the administrative fine order and reiterates the four‑trading‑day notification deadline and the legal framework for voting rights notifications

TBD Deadline

- Deadline for Brown Capital Management LLC to lodge an appeal against the administrative fine order, in line with German administrative procedure and appeal timelines (not specified in the publication)

Ongoing

- For all shareholders subject to WpHG, the obligation persists to notify the issuer and BaFin within four trading days whenever relevant thresholds are reached, exceeded or fallen below

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.

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...

Key dates

22 July 2026

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

TBD (MISP legislative timeline)

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2011-07-22

CFTC adopted Part 20 as a temporary large trader reporting framework for physical commodity swaps.

2026-07-21

Final order effective date; routine Part 20 reporting requirements become ineffective and unenforceable.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that Part 20 daily and event-based filing workflows are disabled or archived as of the effective date.
• Firms may wish to retain the underlying books, records, and futures-equivalent conversion methodologies required for special-call production under § 20.6 and related retained provisions.
• Operational teams may wish to map any legacy Part 20 controls to SDR, Parts 43 and 45, and Part 150 processes to avoid duplicate reporting.
• Firms may wish to review document retention and response procedures so that special-call requests can be answered promptly if the CFTC seeks underlying records.
• Compliance functions may wish to update internal regulatory inventories and policies to reflect that Part 20 routine reporting is no longer enforceable, while recordkeeping obligations remain.

What changed

The order renders the routine position-reporting requirements of Part 20 ineffective and unenforceable, so clearing organizations, clearing members, and swap dealers are no longer required to file the daily and event-based reports previously required under §§ 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, and related reporting provisions. The CFTC is retaining, under § 20.9(b), the recordkeeping and special-call provisions, including the obligation to keep records of paired swaps and swaptions and the methods used to convert positions into futures equivalents and to produce those records on request.

Key dates

2025-07-25

CME requested exemptive relief from CFTC regulation 41.25(c)

2026-07-10

SEC granted CME exemptive relief, subject to heightened listing standards

2026-07-15

CME submitted an updated request to the CFTC incorporating the SEC-conditioned listing standards

2026-07-16

CFTC order became applicable

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date of the CFTC order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any proposed or existing single-stock futures products rely on opening-price settlement and whether the CME order changes product design assumptions.
• Firms may wish to confirm that the relevant underlying securities satisfy CME’s heightened liquidity and market-capitalization listing standards before marketing, clearing, or supporting these contracts.
• Market surveillance teams may wish to assess whether surveillance procedures need updating for closing-price settlement mechanics and end-of-day manipulation risks.
• Operational teams may wish to align settlement, market data, and surveillance processes with the product’s closing-price final settlement methodology.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to track the separate SEC and CFTC conditions, since CME’s ability to proceed depends on both regimes.

What changed

The order exempts CME from CFTC regulation 41.25(c), which generally requires the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product to fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities. The relief is granted under regulation 41.25(e), which permits exemptions on specified terms and conditions when consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers.

Key dates

16 July 2026

- BaFin imposes a €240,000 administrative fine on TeamViewer SE for violating Article 17(1) MAR by failing to disclose a cyberattack without delay

20 July 2026

- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice detailing the breach, the nature of the inside information (cyberattack), and the applicable fine range under MAR

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.

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...

Key dates

10 July 2026

– SFC publication date confirming the 17th high‑level enforcement cooperation meeting between the SFC and CSRC in Hong Kong and the focus on cross‑boundary enforcement and enhanced information exchange

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.

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...

Key dates

2026 (TBD)

- The Retail Fraud Working Group begins operating as an internal enforcement priority; the announcement does not specify a formal launch date or implementation timetable

13 May 2026

- SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock publicly stated that the Retail Fraud Working Group would be reinstituted and that it would focus on protecting retail investors and strengthening coordination with state and federal partners

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.

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.

Key dates

31 March 2025 (inferable) Deadline

– Latest date by which VARTA AG should have published its 2024 half‑yearly financial report, assuming a 30 September 2024 half‑year‑end and the WpHG three‑month deadline (the obligation is explicit; the precise calendar date is inferable from the three‑month rule)

31 March 2025 (inferable)

– Latest date by which VARTA AG should have published the announcement stating when and where the 2024 half‑yearly financial report would be made publicly available, and in any case before the report itself

23 June 2026

– BaFin imposes administrative fines totalling €620,000 on VARTA AG for breaches of MAR ad‑hoc disclosure obligations and WpHG financial reporting obligations

01 July 2026

– BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website

09 July 2026

– BaFin modifies the publication (e.g. editorial changes), confirming ongoing communication around the enforcement case

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.

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.

Key dates

Q2 2026 (April–June 2026)

- Period covered by MAS’ “Key Enforcement Actions Taken by MAS in Q2 2026” enforcement round-up

14 May 2026

- Effective date of MAS’ revocation of the Major Payment Institution licence of Bsquared Technology Pte Ltd (BSQ)

18 May 2026

- MAS announced reprimands against senior management of Havenport Investments Pte Ltd and a $40,000 composition fine on the firm for regulatory breaches

19 May 2026

- Mr Tan Chun Yong and Mr Xie Jianfeng were convicted and sentenced (10 weeks’ imprisonment and a $200,000 fine respectively) for trading-related offences under the SFA

20 May 2026

- MAS published the outcomes of the SFA trading-related convictions and confirmed revocation of BSQ’s MPI licence with effect from 14 May 2026

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.

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.

Key dates

10 January 1994

- Summit Ascent Holdings Limited is listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong

22 February 2007

- LET Group Holdings Limited is listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong

September 2024

- The SFC commences legal proceedings under section 214 SFO against Mr Lo, LET and Summit Ascent

27 September 2024

- The SFC issues a press release giving further details of the section 214 proceedings against Mr Lo, LET and Summit Ascent

01 September 2025

- The shares of LET and Summit Ascent are delisted from the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong

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.

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...

Key dates

23 June 2026

- CFTC files its lawsuit against Kentucky to block enforcement actions and special transaction fees against CFTC‑registered DCMs

TBD (2026–2027)

- Key procedural milestones in *CFTC v. Kentucky* (motion practice, preliminary injunction hearings, and potential appellate review), which will shape how quickly and broadly federal preemption over prediction markets is clarified

TBD (aligned with ongoing cases in Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island)

- Progression of related CFTC suits and amicus‑briefed appeals in the Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will collectively define the jurisdictional perimeter for event contracts

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.

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...

Key dates

22 September 2025

- SFC consultation on HKIDR‑DM published (page last updated on this date)

22 December 2025

- End of three‑month consultation period; last date for submissions to SFC on HKIDR‑DM proposals

Q2 2028

- Target implementation of HKIDR‑DM, concurrent with HKEX’s launch of the Orion Derivatives Platform, subject to 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.

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.

Key dates

TBD (post‑comment, est. 2027 or later) Deadline

– Potential SEC adoption of a final rule rescinding Rules 611 and 610(e), including any specified effective and compliance dates

TBD (proposal publication date in Federal Register)

– SEC proposal to rescind Regulation NMS Rules 611 and 610(e) is published, starting the public comment period

TBD (typically 30–60 days after Federal Register publication)

– End of the initial public comment period on the proposal to rescind 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).

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).

Key dates

November 2025 Deadline

- Resolution Capital Limited failed to submit a required voting rights notification within the prescribed four‑trading‑day period, constituting a contravention of sections 33 et seq. WpHG

27 May 2026

- BaFin imposed an administrative fine of €80,000 on Resolution Capital Limited for a breach of supervisory duties linked to the November 2025 notification failure

11 June 2026

- BaFin published the enforcement measure (“Resolution Capital Limited: BaFin imposes administrative fine”) on its website

26 June 2026

- The BaFin publication was modified, indicating finalisation or minor updates to the public notice

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.

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...

Key dates

2026-06-11

SEC open meeting at which Chairman Atkins discussed the proposed rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e)

2026-08-10 Deadline

Comment period deadline if measured as 60 days after the June 11, 2026 Federal Register publication date reflected in the SEC materials

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory policies, procedures, surveillance logic, and supervisory manuals that reference Rule 611, Rule 610(e), or related Rule 600 definitions.
• Broker-dealers and ATS operators may wish to assess whether current routing and execution-quality models assume protected-quotation routing obligations that could change if the proposal is finalized.
• Market structure and legal teams may want to map client disclosures, best execution policies, and venue-selection standards that rely on the current trade-through regime.
• Surveillance and technology teams may wish to test how lock/cross alerts, protected-quote checks, and trade-through exception logic would operate under a rescinded Rule 611/610(e) framework.
• Firms may want to monitor the Federal Register publication and comment process, since the proposal states comments would be due 60 days after publication.

What changed

The publication is not a final rule; it is a policy statement accompanying a proposed rulemaking. The SEC said the proposal would rescind Rule 611, rescind Rule 610(e), remove related defined terms in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, and make conforming amendments to related provisions. Rule 611 currently requires trading centers to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs of protected quotations in NMS stocks, subject to exceptions, and Rule 610(e) addresses locking and crossing quotations.