Reporting &amp; Disclosure

🇦🇺 ASIC News

August 4th 2026

ASIC proposes improved pre-IPO advertising flexibility and global alignment

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Investment Management

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

August 4th 2026

CSSF press release relating to the publication of Q&A CNC 26/038, entitled “Large associations, associations recognised as being of public utility and foundations: targeted clarifications on the new accounting regime introduced by the Law of 7 August 2023” (only in French)

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF is formally drawing attention to the CNC Q&A 26/038, which provides detailed interpretative guidance on the **new accounting regime introduced by the Law of 7 August 2023** for large not‑for‑profit associations, public‑utility associations and foundations. This matters for compliance teams because these entities are now aligned with the accounting regime for “medium‑sized undertakings” under Luxembourg company law, with specific obligations on annual accounts formats, filing, and chart‑of‑accounts choices that require governance, process and system changes.

What Changed

- Large associations, associations recognised as being of public utility and foundations are now subject to the accounting regime applicable to “medium‑sized undertakings” under the amended...
Annual accounts for affected entities must include a non‑abridged balance sheet, a profit and loss account (at least in abridged format), and notes to the accounts containing disclosures required by...
Affected entities must use statutory LRCS layouts for the balance sheet and profit and loss account and file their annual accounts in classic format with the Luxembourg Trade and Companies Register...
Large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations remain exempt from the mandatory use of the Standard Chart of Accounts (Plan Comptable Normalisé – PCN) and from eCDF standard data...
Affected entities may voluntarily adopt the PCN; if they do not adopt PCN, they must maintain an internal chart of accounts and ensure robust, documented mapping between internal accounts and...

Suggested Considerations

Identify all Luxembourg associations, public‑utility associations and foundations within or related to the group that are impacted by the Law of 7 August 2023 and confirm their size classification (small, medium‑sized, large) and whether they fall under the “medium‑sized undertakings” regime.
Review existing accounting policies, charts of accounts and annual accounts formats for affected entities to ensure alignment with LRCS statutory layouts, including non‑abridged balance sheet, appropriate profit and loss format, and required notes disclosures.
Decide at governing‑body level whether each affected entity will voluntarily adopt the PCN or maintain an internal chart of accounts, documenting the rationale, governance approvals and compliance impacts of the chosen option.
Where PCN is not adopted, design, implement and document a robust mapping from the internal chart of accounts to the statutory LRCS balance sheet and profit and loss layouts, ensuring audit‑ready documentation and traceability.
Update accounting systems and reporting tools for affected entities to support LRCS statutory layouts, consistent layout adaptations, and classic‑format filing with the RCS, including necessary changes to interfaces and data capture.

Key Dates

07 August 2023

- Law of 7 August 2023 introducing the new accounting regime for associations and foundations enters into force and defines classification as “small associations”, “medium‑sized associations” and “large associations” with corresponding accounting obligations

Autumn 2026

- CNC plans to publish an accounting guide dedicated to the new accounting regime for ASBLs classified as small, medium‑sized and large associations, and associations recognised as being of public utility

04 August 2026

- CSSF press release is published, formally drawing supervisory attention to CNC Q&A 26/038 and the related upcoming CNC accounting guide

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance may result in defective or non‑compliant annual accounts filings, potential rejection or queries from the RCS, and heightened supervisory scrutiny by the CSSF where the entities are linked to regulated groups, with knock‑on effects on group reporting and reputational risk. For larger public‑interest or group‑related entities, persistent non‑compliance could trigger audit qualifications and regulatory concerns about governance and internal control over financial reporting.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankInsuranceAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

August 4th 2026

CSSF communiqué relating to the publication of Q&A CNC 26/038, entitled “Large associations, associations recognised as being of public utility and foundations: targeted clarifications on the new accounting regime introduced by the Law of 7 August 2023” (only in French)

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF is formally drawing attention to CNC Q&A 26/038, which provides detailed interpretative guidance on the **new accounting regime introduced by the Law of 7 August 2023** for large not‑for‑profit associations, public‑utility associations and foundations. This matters for compliance teams because these entities are now subject to annual accounts obligations aligned with the regime for “medium‑sized undertakings” under the Luxembourg commercial companies law, with specific rules on formats, exemptions from PCN/eCDF, and forthcoming detailed guidance for all association size categories.

What Changed

- Large not‑for‑profit associations, associations recognised as being of public utility and foundations are required to prepare annual accounting documents consisting at a minimum of annual accounts...
These entities fall within the regime applicable to “medium‑sized undertakings”, which drives the required content and level of detail of their annual accounts (balance sheet, profit and loss account...
The law and the CNC Q&A confirm that large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations are not legally required to use the Standard chart of accounts (Plan comptable normalisé, PCN) or...
Although exempt from mandatory PCN use and eCDF standard data collection, these entities must still file their annual accounts with the Luxembourg Trade and Companies Register (RCS) using statutory...
Large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations are exempt from the obligation to file the PCN trial balance (balance générale) via the eCDF platform, even though they may still...

Suggested Considerations

Identify whether the organisation qualifies as a large association, an association recognised as being of public utility or a foundation under the Law of 7 August 2023, and document the classification decision with reference to Articles 18, 36 and 52 of that law.
Update internal accounting policies to require annual accounts to be prepared in accordance with the regime for undertakings referred to in Article 47 LRCS, including minimum content (balance sheet, profit and loss account and notes) and disclosure requirements.
Decide formally whether to adopt the PCN on a voluntary basis or to maintain an internal chart of accounts, and record this decision in accounting governance documents approved by the board or governing body.
Where PCN is not adopted, design and implement a detailed and documented mapping from internal general ledger accounts to LRCS statutory balance sheet and profit and loss layouts to ensure accurate preparation and filing of annual accounts.
Review and, where necessary, redesign annual accounts templates to comply with LRCS layouts while making only permitted adaptations (for example, titles and subtotals) that maintain clarity, comparability and consistency over time.

Key Dates

01 January 2023

- Earliest financial year start date from which adjusted size criteria under Articles 35 and 47 LRCS may be applied to undertakings and groups, which indirectly affects categorisation and accounting obligations of entities subject to commercial‑law size criteria

07 August 2023

- Law of 7 August 2023 introducing the new accounting regime for associations and foundations is adopted, setting the legal basis for reclassification and annual accounts obligations

01 January 2024

- Default application date of the adjusted LRCS size criteria for undertakings and groups where early application from 01 January 2023 is not chosen

Financial year 2025

- New LRCS size thresholds start to determine the categorisation of pre‑existing Luxembourg undertakings and, by analogy, influence assessments of “medium‑sized” status relevant to associations

Autumn 2026

- CNC plans to publish an accounting guide dedicated to the new accounting regime for not‑for‑profit associations (ASBLs) classified as small, medium‑sized and large, as well as public‑utility associations and foundations

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance primarily exposes large associations, public‑utility associations and foundations to deficiencies in statutory annual accounts and registry filings, which can lead to legal and governance risks, increased audit findings and potential supervisory concerns where the CSSF has a stake. For CSSF‑regulated firms, reliance on non‑compliant counterparties may undermine financial reporting integrity and due‑diligence standards, with knock‑on effects in broader regulatory reviews.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇨🇭 FINMA News high

August 4th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Taliban

Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung der Liste der sanktionierten natürlichen Personen, Unternehmen und Organisationen der Verordnung vom 21. März 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Organisationen, die mit den Taliban in Verbindung stehen (SR 946.231.07), publiziert.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Consumer Credit

🇸🇬 MAS News

August 4th 2026

Written reply to Parliamentary Question on minors who incurred excessive or unauthorised spending through online platforms

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Insurance & Pensions

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

August 3rd 2026

EBA, EIOPA and ESMA propose amendments to bilateral margin requirements

EBA, EIOPA and ESMA propose amendments to bilateral margin requirements 03 August 2026 Joint Committee Trading The European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA – the ESAs) today published a final report on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), proposing to simplify the bilateral margin requirements of the European Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251. The proposed amendments aim to simplify the bilateral margin framework for counterparties that are subject to initia...

AI Analysis

The ESAs have issued a Final Report and draft RTS proposing targeted amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 so that counterparties below the EUR 8 billion initial margin threshold under EMIR are fully exempt from exchanging initial margin, both on new and existing uncleared OTC derivatives. This materially simplifies bilateral margining for smaller in-scope counterparties, reduces operational and custodial burdens, and aligns the EU regime with similar reforms already implemented in other jurisdictions (e.g. UK EMIR). Compliance teams must prepare now for the transition from a “legacy-only” margining obligation to a complete exemption once the EUR 8 billion AANA threshold is no longer met.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

03 August 2026

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

TBD (European Commission adoption)

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

TBD (European Parliament and Council scrutiny)

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

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

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

TBD (Three years after entry into force) DEADLINE

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

Compliance Impact

The amendments reduce the risk of technical non-compliance for below-threshold counterparties by simplifying obligations, but firms that fail to correctly apply the new threshold-based exemption (e.g. continuing or ceasing margin exchanges incorrectly) may face supervisory findings, remediation demands and potential sanctions under EMIR. Non-compliance could also create contractual disputes and counterparty risk misalignment if margin treatment is inconsistent across jurisdictions or relationships.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF News

August 3rd 2026

The ACPR and AMF Joint Unit publishes its analysis on the distribution, fees and performance of structured products

Derivatives or structured products Marketing Retail investors Journalists Investment management companies The ACPR and AMF Joint Unit publishes its analysis on the distribution, fees and performance of structured products

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 FCA News

August 3rd 2026

FCA finalises rules to cut firms' transaction reporting costs by over £100m a year

Transaction reporting requirements become smarter, simpler and more proportionate under new rules from the FCA. Transaction reports are critical to the FCA’s ability to detect and investigate market abuse, monitor market functioning and supervise firms effectively.The new rules are designed to ensure the FCA continues to receive accurate, high-quality data while eliminating duplicative or low-value reporting. By removing unnecessary reporting the changes will reduce regulatory burden and supp...

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇬🇧 BoE Enforcement medium

August 3rd 2026

Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC)

Following an external recruitment process, the Bank of England (the Bank) has appointed Nicholas Segal as Chair of its Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC), and Peter King as Deputy Chair, with effect from 1 August 2026.

AI Analysis

The Bank of England has appointed **Nicholas Segal** as Chair and **Peter King** as Deputy Chair of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC), effective 1 August 2026, following expiry of the terms of Sir William Blair and Philip Marsden. This is a governance and enforcement leadership change, not a change to the EDMC Procedures, but compliance teams should anticipate potential shifts in enforcement approach and decision‑making tone across prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties and note issuance.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

August 2018

- EDMC established by the Court of Directors to provide independent decision‑making in contested enforcement cases and functional separation from investigation teams

January 2024

On 8 July 2026, Bafin imposed an administrative fine amounting to €20,000 on Leo International Precision Health AG. The company had contravened obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). Leo International Precision Health AG had failed to publish an announcement stating from which date and at which web address its annual financial information for the financial year 2023 was made publicly available. It had also failed to publish its half-yearly financial report for the financi...

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed a €20,000 administrative fine on Leo International Precision Health AG for breaching disclosure obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG) by failing to (i) announce when and where its 2023 annual financial information would be available online and (ii) publish its 2024 half‑yearly financial report within the statutory deadline. This enforcement action underscores BaFin’s strict approach to issuers’ periodic disclosure and announcement duties, and signals that failures in relatively “technical” reporting obligations can trigger material sanctions, including fines up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with WpHG financial reporting and announcement obligations can lead to administrative fines for each breach, with maximum sanctions of €10 million or up to 5% of total revenue and potential reputational damage from public BaFin enforcement notices.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 30th 2026

Notification letter – Notification of the intention of an AIFM to manage AIFs established in a Member State other than its Home Member State in accordance with Article 33(2) of Directive 2011/61/EU or to establish a branch in accordance with Article 33(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU (Updated)

Version 3.1

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 30th 2026

Notification letter – Notification made by a Management Company of its intention to pursue the activities for which it has been authorised in another Member State in accordance with Article 17(2) or Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/65/EC (Updated)

Version 4.1

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇬🇧 PRA Policy high

July 29th 2026

PS18/26 – Solvency UK: Post-implementation reporting and disclosure amendments and Own Funds permissions update

Policy statement 18/26

AI Analysis

PRA Policy Statement PS18/26 finalises a package of **post‑implementation amendments to Solvency UK reporting and disclosure** and **targeted fixes to the Own Funds framework**, aligned to apply via a single taxonomy update for year‑end 2026 reporting. This matters because insurance compliance teams must adjust regulatory reporting, disclosure processes, and Own Funds permission practices to the updated PRA Rulebook, templates and expectations, including new data requirements for third‑country branches and removal of certain permission requirements.

What Changed

- The PRA finalises amendments to the Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook to implement post‑implementation clarifications, consistency improvements and data quality enhancements to Solvency UK...
Reporting and disclosure templates and instructions are amended (including XBRL taxonomy changes) to reflect the refined Solvency UK reporting framework and consequential changes from the Own Funds...
The PRA confirms transfer of the Matching Adjustment Asset and Liability Information Return (MALIR) templates from Excel to XBRL submission format, to be incorporated into the single insurance...
The PRA updates Supervisory Statement 7/18 – Solvency II: Matching adjustment, including changes to the Matching Adjustment supplementary information form under Insurance rule permissions and...
The PRA introduces a new collection of projected Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) liabilities data from third‑country branch undertakings to support enhanced branch supervision.

Suggested Considerations

Review and map existing Solvency UK reporting processes, systems and controls against the amended Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook and updated templates and instructions to identify required changes for year‑end 2026.
Engage with finance, risk and actuarial functions to implement the new XBRL‑based MALIR submission process, including testing data extraction, validation and filing workflows aligned to the updated insurance taxonomy.
Update internal Own Funds policies, classification procedures and governance documentation to reflect removal of specified permission requirements and the amended Own Funds Part and Group Supervision Part of the PRA Rulebook.
Reconfigure regulatory reporting infrastructure and vendor solutions to adopt the single updated PRA insurance XBRL taxonomy, ensuring all Solvency UK quantitative reporting templates and narrative disclosures are correctly mapped and validated.
For third‑country branch undertakings, design and implement processes to calculate and report projected FSCS liabilities data in line with PRA expectations, including data sourcing, modelling assumptions and internal review controls.

Key Dates

31 December 2024

– Solvency UK reporting and disclosure reforms (phase 2) come into effect for reporting and disclosure reference dates on or after 31 December 2024, including the new Bank of England insurance XBRL taxonomy and removal of the Regular Supervisory Report requirement

Year‑end 2026 reporting (reference date 31 December 2026)

– Implementation of PS18/26 reporting and disclosure changes and Own Funds consequential reporting via a **single updated insurance taxonomy**, covering all amended templates, instructions, MALIR XBRL submissions and new FSCS projected liabilities data for third‑country branches

30 September 2026

– Liquidity reporting requirements for UK Solvency UK insurers with large derivatives and securities financing transaction exposures come into force, requiring firms above specified thresholds to commence new liquidity reporting

31 December 2026 DEADLINE

– Revocation of certain Solvency UK Modifications by Consent (including the Reporting MbC) becomes effective; affected third‑country branches meeting premium or provisions thresholds must submit the full branch reporting suite

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the updated reporting, disclosure and Own Funds requirements may result in supervisory findings, requests for remediation, potential use of PRA powers, and could affect the reliability of Solvency Capital Requirement, Own Funds and liquidity assessments. Given the alignment of multiple reforms into a single year‑end 2026 taxonomy update, control failures could have multi‑template, group‑wide impact on regulatory submissions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Insurance

🇬🇧 PRA News

July 29th 2026

LIAF02/26 – Low Impact Amendments Finalisation July 2026

Low Impact Amendments Finalisation July 2026

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Insurance & Pensions Banking & Credit

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

July 29th 2026

LIAC02/26 – Low Impact Amendments Consultation July 2026

Low Impact Amendments Consultation July 2026

AI Analysis

The PRA’s LIAC02/26 consultation proposes targeted “low impact” changes to Solvency UK reporting for Lloyd’s syndicates and to PRA liquidity rules linked to Basel 3.1 and the forthcoming Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime. These changes will reduce reporting burdens for Lloyd’s syndicates and refine LCR eligibility/treatment of non‑UK covered bonds and related liquidity provisions, but they require systems, policy and reporting updates ahead of the 2026 year‑end and 2027 implementation.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

11 September 2026

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

31 December 2026 DEADLINE

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

01 January 2027

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance would primarily manifest as defective regulatory reporting and mis‑stated LCR calculations, exposing firms to PRA supervisory challenge, potential remedial actions, and in serious cases liquidity add‑ons or restrictions on business activities. For Lloyd’s syndicates, failure to align with the new reporting model could also create data gaps in supervisory engagement and increase scrutiny under the PRA–Lloyd’s Cooperation Agreement.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

InsuranceBank

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 29th 2026

Hidden mortgage offset failures costing Australians millions in lost interest savings

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 28th 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇺🇸 CFTC News

July 24th 2026

CFTC Releases Advisory on Self-Certification of an Event Contract Series

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 24th 2026

Others,Publication of "Progress Report 2026 for Advancing Asset Management Services in Japan"

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 24th 2026

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/1844 of 23 July 2026

amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 24th 2026

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/1848 of 23 July 2026

amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 24th 2026

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1843 of 23 July 2026

implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇭🇰 SFC News

July 24th 2026

SFC enhances regulatory framework for daily leveraged and inverse products to ensure orderly market trading

No description available.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇺🇸 CFTC Consultation high

July 23rd 2026

CFTC Extends Public Comment Period on Proposed Rule on the Extension of Standard Futures Contracts to 24/7 Trading and on Perpetual Contracts Referencing Physically Delivered or Storable Energy Commodities

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CFTC has extended by 30 days the public comment period on its targeted Request for Comment (RFC) covering (i) extension of **standard futures contracts (including energy futures) to 24/7 trading** and (ii) **perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities**. This extension signals that the Commission intends to build a more complete record on market structure, risk management, and investor protection before setting a regulatory framework, and compliance teams in energy and derivatives markets now have additional time to shape that framework and align their controls with emerging expectations.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with eventual CFTC expectations and rules around 24/7 trading and perpetual energy contracts could result in denial of product listings, enforcement action for inadequate risk controls or misleading disclosures, and heightened supervisory scrutiny. Early alignment with the RFC themes and proactive engagement with the CFTC will reduce regulatory risk and position firms favorably as the framework solidifies.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CFTC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker DealerHedge FundCrypto Exchange

Crypto & Digital Assets Capital Markets & Trading

🇮🇪 CBI Consultation low

July 23rd 2026

Central Bank encourages public to have their say on designs for new euro banknotes

People across Ireland are invited to give their feedback on the shortlisted design proposals for the next series of euro banknotes, unveiled today by the European Central Bank (ECB). These design proposals are based on two different themes – “European culture” and “Rivers and birds” – and on the associated motifs chosen to illustrate them. Now, everyone in Ireland and Europe is invited to have their say following the decision of the ECB’s Governing Council to run an online survey on these ten...

AI Analysis

What Changed

- The ECB has published ten shortlisted design proposals for the next series of euro banknotes, based on the themes “European culture” and “Rivers and birds.”
The ECB has opened an online public survey to gather feedback on the proposed designs.
The survey is open until 21 September 2026.
The ECB Governing Council is expected to make the final design decision around the end of 2026.
The current publication does not impose any immediate compliance obligation on firms; it is a consultation and design-selection step, not an enacted regulatory rule.

Suggested Considerations

Review the ECB consultation materials and assess whether your firm has any direct operational exposure to future euro banknote changes.
Monitor ECB and Central Bank of Ireland updates for the final design decision expected around the end of 2026.
Prepare internal stakeholder briefings for cash operations, branch operations, payments, customer service, and communications teams on the expected euro banknote redesign timeline.
If your firm accepts or processes cash, begin a preliminary review of any systems, controls, or vendor dependencies that could be affected by future note specifications, authentication features, or rollout timing.
Update external messaging and FAQs only after the ECB publishes the final banknote design and implementation details.

Key Dates

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintechAll Firms

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

July 23rd 2026

The AMF Enforcement Committee has fined an asset management company and two of its directors for breaches of their professional obligations and cleared two other directors

Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment management companies The AMF Enforcement Committee has fined an asset management company and two of its directors for breaches of their professional obligations and cleared two other directors

AI Analysis

The AMF found that Uzès Gestion failed in several core control areas: conflicts of interest identification, continuity of human resources, remuneration compliance, investor communication, AML/CFT reporting accuracy, marketing fairness, and valuation governance. The Committee also rejected one of the Board’s more serious allegations—failure to comply with authorisation conditions—because the impugned acts were isolated, limited, and tied to the group’s operating structure, not proof of a systematic breach.

What Changed

- The AMF’s decision reinforces that asset managers must maintain continuous compliance with their authorisation conditions, but isolated overreach by a person not listed as an executive officer was...
Firms must have procedures that identify and manage conflicts of interest, including conflicts arising from links with a parent company and from the overlapping functions of directors and financial...
Asset managers must ensure continuity of human resources and align remuneration practices for financial managers with the applicable regulations, the approved programme of activity, and internal...
Firms must disclose to investors management-fee retrocessions paid to distributors and must be able to justify any claimed enhancement of the service provided.
Information provided to investors and prospects must be clear, accurate, and not misleading, including in marketing materials.

Suggested Considerations

Review the firm’s authorisation file, governance map, and executive-officer appointments to confirm that actual decision-making powers match the AMF-approved organisational structure.
Update conflicts-of-interest procedures to capture conflicts arising from parent-company relationships, cross-directorships, and shared finance leadership roles.
Test whether staffing levels and succession arrangements ensure continuity of human resources for control functions and key operational roles.
Reassess remuneration arrangements for financial managers to verify consistency with the firm’s programme of activity, internal procedures, and regulatory requirements.
Verify that all distributor retrocessions are fully disclosed to investors and that any claim of enhanced service is documented with evidence.

Key Dates

20 July 2026

- The AMF Enforcement Committee adopted the sanction decision against Uzès Gestion and two directors

23 July 2026

- The AMF published the enforcement committee news release summarising the decision

Compliance Impact

The sanction is significant because it combines firm-level penalties with individual warnings and fines, signalling that the AMF will pursue both organisational failures and management accountability. For non-compliance, the likely consequences include monetary sanctions, reputational damage, supervisory scrutiny, and greater risk of follow-on remediation demands.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure AML / Financial Crime

Topics:

Asset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 FCA Enforcement high

July 23rd 2026

Managing conflicts of interest in insurance

Having just joined as the FCA’s new insurance director, it’s been great getting to know the team and see the variety of work they’re doing – whether that’s working with the industry to improve claims experiences for customers, consulting on simplifying our rules or supporting growth with a new regime for captive insurers.One item that has crossed my desk is vertically integrated business models, which we’re publishing information for firms on today.When a consumer buys insurance, they need to...

AI Analysis

The FCA has issued a supervisory blog, from its new Insurance Director, setting out strengthened expectations on how insurance firms must identify, manage and evidence conflicts of interest arising from vertically integrated and complex ownership/financing structures. It signals heightened supervisory and enforcement focus on business models that span multiple parts of the insurance chain, with clear emphasis that disclosure alone is insufficient and that firms must be able to demonstrate fair value and good customer outcomes at every link in the chain.

What Changed

- The FCA explicitly highlights vertically integrated insurance business models (combining underwriting, distribution, premium finance and related services within one group) as a source of heightened...
Ownership and financing relationships, including private and non-transparent arrangements within groups or between firms, are now clearly framed as potential conflicts drivers that must be assessed...
The FCA reiterates that having conflicts of interest is not inherently unacceptable, but firms must actively identify, manage and evidence those conflicts through effective governance, senior...
The FCA states that disclosure on its own is not sufficient; firms remain obligated to properly manage conflicts, and cannot rely solely on informing customers to discharge their duties.
Firms are expected to review how they design products and panels, structure remuneration, and communicate with customers to ensure that commercial relationships and incentives do not distort customer...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct a board-level review of the firm’s business model, focusing on vertical integration, ownership and financing relationships to identify where commercial incentives may misalign with customer interests and create conflicts of interest.
Map the full insurance value chain (underwriting, distribution, premium finance, ancillary services) within the group or related parties, and document actual and potential conflicts of interest at each link and interaction point.
Review and, where necessary, update the firm’s conflicts-of-interest policy and SYSC 10 framework to explicitly cover vertically integrated structures, premium finance arrangements, delegated authorities and any intra-group referrals.
Establish or strengthen governance arrangements to ensure clear senior management accountability for conflicts-of-interest management, including allocation of responsibilities in Statements of Responsibilities and the Management Responsibilities Map.
Assess product design, panel construction and distribution strategies to ensure they are not unduly influenced by internal group relationships or remuneration structures that could lead to poor customer outcomes or unfair value.

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

July 23rd 2026

Non-compliance with notification requirements: Bafin imposes administrative fines

On 15 July 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed two administrative fines, each in the amount of €55,000, on a natural person for failure to comply with the requirements of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). In August 2025, this person failed to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed two administrative fines of €55,000 each (total €110,000) on a natural person for failing to submit mandatory voting rights notifications within the statutory deadline under sections 33 et seq. of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). The case underlines that BaFin is actively enforcing substantial shareholding disclosure rules and that delayed notifications by individuals, not just corporates, can trigger six‑figure sanctions and associated reputational and governance consequences.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

AI Analysis

BaFin’s new supervisory statement confirms that, as of 1 July 2026, credit institutions and investment firms in Germany are **prohibited from accepting any monetary or non‑monetary benefits from third parties in return for forwarding client orders** (PFOF), aligning German practice with the EU‑wide ban under revised MiFIR. This is a structural shift for neobroker and low‑fee brokerage business models, with immediate implications for remuneration structures, best‑execution frameworks, conflict‑of‑interest management, and client disclosures.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the PFOF ban exposes firms to BaFin enforcement action, including fines, supervisory measures, potential restrictions on business activities, and reputational damage, particularly where conflicts of interest and client detriment are identified. Given the structural role of PFOF in many neobroker models, failure to adapt business practices and remuneration structures promptly can also threaten the economic viability of affected firms.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerFintech

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

July 22nd 2026

Circular CSSF 21/783 (outdated)

No description available.

AI Analysis

ESMA has withdrawn its MiFID II/MiFIR market data Guidelines because their subject matter has been transposed into Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156 on the obligation to make market data available on a reasonable commercial basis. As a result, CSSF Circular 21/783, which implemented those ESMA Guidelines in Luxembourg supervisory practice, will become formally outdated from 23 August 2026, requiring MiFID firms and trading venues to ensure their policies and commercial terms now fully align with the directly applicable RTS in the Delegated Regulation.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

12 June 2025

- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156 is adopted, supplementing MiFIR with RTS on the obligation to make market data available to the public on a reasonable commercial basis

23 August 2026

- ESMA Guidelines on MiFID II/MiFIR market data obligations are withdrawn; CSSF Circular 21/783, which incorporated these Guidelines into CSSF administrative practice, becomes outdated from this date

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance will now be assessed directly against binding RTS under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1156, increasing enforcement risk if market data is priced or provided on terms that are not objectively “reasonable” or non‑discriminatory. Firms that fail to adapt their frameworks by 23 August 2026 risk supervisory findings, potential sanctions, and challenges to their market data commercial models.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement medium

July 22nd 2026

SEC Announces Departure of Principal Deputy Director of Enforcement Sam Waldon

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Sam Waldon, Principal Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement, will depart the agency on July 31, 2026, after more than 14 years at the SEC. He will be succeeded as Principal Deputy…

AI Analysis

The SEC has announced that **Principal Deputy Director of Enforcement Sam Waldon will depart the agency on 31 July 2026**, and that he will be succeeded as Principal Deputy Director by another senior Enforcement Division leader (name specified in the release). This leadership change matters for compliance teams because Waldon has been a central architect of recent Enforcement Division restructuring, prioritization of “core” fraud cases, and changes to investigative and Wells processes; his departure and successor may recalibrate enforcement focus, case selection, and expectations around cooperation and remediation.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with securities‑law obligations in core enforcement areas (fraud, insider trading, accounting and disclosure violations, market manipulation, and fiduciary breaches) remains subject to significant SEC sanctions, including civil penalties, disgorgement, bars, and undertakings. The leadership transition does not lessen enforcement risk; instead, it may refine focus and increase predictability around investor‑harm cases, making robust controls and documented remediation essential to mitigate potential penalties and collateral consequences.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

July 22nd 2026

Brown Capital Management LLC: Bafin imposes administrative fines

On July 10 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed administrative fines totaling €187,500 on Brown Capital Management LLC. The fines were imposed due to the company’s failure to comply with obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). The company failed to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed administrative fines totaling **€187,500** on **Brown Capital Management LLC** for failing to submit voting rights notifications within the statutory deadline under sections 33 et seq. of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). The case underscores BaFin’s strict enforcement posture on shareholding transparency and highlights the need for robust cross-border monitoring of German issuer voting-rights thresholds by non‑German asset managers and other institutional investors.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with WpHG voting rights notification obligations can lead to significant administrative fines that may scale with turnover and may also trigger additional consequences such as loss or suspension of rights attached to shares during periods of non‑compliance. For global investment managers and institutional investors, failures in this area present both financial exposure and reputational risk with BaFin and listed issuers, and may prompt broader supervisory scrutiny of governance and control frameworks.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 22nd 2026

Press Conferences,Press Conference by KATAYAMA Satsuki, Minister of Finance and Minister of State for Financial Services (July 10, 2026)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 22nd 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.696 July 22, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankInsuranceAll Firms

🇬🇧 BoE Consultation medium

July 22nd 2026

PRA consults on updated guidance for friendly society amalgamations and transfers

The proposals would provide more detail on the PRA’s approach to Part VIII transactions, helping firms plan amalgamations and transfers more efficiently.

AI Analysis

The PRA has opened a consultation on updating its guidance for **friendly society amalgamations and transfers** by revising Statement of Policy 3/15 to give firms more detail on how **Part VIII transfers** are expected to progress. For compliance teams, this matters because it clarifies the PRA’s process expectations, including sequencing, when a **member vote may be waived**, when an **independent actuary’s report** may be required, and whether the process applies to firms that are or are not friendly societies.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

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

22 October 2026

- The consultation closes

Compliance Impact

The immediate impact is medium-to-high for firms engaged in, or preparing for, Part VIII transfers because the consultation signals more explicit supervisory expectations on process, evidence, and timing. Failure to align transaction planning with the final guidance could increase execution risk, delay approvals, or require rework of governance, actuarial, or member-consent steps once the final Policy Statement is issued.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

InsuranceAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

July 22nd 2026

CP12/26 – Insurance friendly societies, amalgamations and transfers

Consultation paper 12/26

AI Analysis

The PRA’s CP12/26 proposes to codify and expand guidance on amalgamations and transfers of insurance friendly societies under Part VIII of the Friendly Societies Act 1992, aligning it more closely with its established approach to insurance business transfers. The consultation matters for compliance teams because it clarifies the PRA’s expectations, evidential standards, and discretionary powers (including member vote dispensations and independent actuarial reports), which will shape how friendly society restructurings must be planned, documented, and executed.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / early 2027)

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

Early July 2026

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the clarified PRA expectations and statutory requirements under Part VIII of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 can result in refusal or delay of transaction confirmation, increased supervisory scrutiny, and potential member or policyholder detriment, reputational damage, and enforcement risk. Given the PRA’s focus on safety, soundness, and policyholder protection, poorly evidenced or poorly governed transactions will face a materially higher risk of challenge and failure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Insurance

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 22nd 2026

ASIC reminds Registered Company Auditors of their obligations and outlines stronger oversight

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 22nd 2026

Federal Court finds former Noumi CEO breached directors’ duties and financial reporting obligations

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

July 22nd 2026

From design to delivery: The AFM and the AMF identify five enablers for effective EU-level market supervision

Supervision Europe & international Markets Journalists Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers From design to delivery: The AFM and the AMF identify five enablers for effective EU-level market supervision

Sectors:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇳🇱 AFM Consultation medium

July 21st 2026

From design to delivery: the AFM and the AMF identify five enablers for effective EU-level market supervision

The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and the French Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) support the European Commission’s proposals to strengthen supervisory convergence and market integration through the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP). As discussions on the future of European capital markets continue, the AFM and the AMF have identified five key enablers that are essential for effective and credible centralised supervision at EU level.

AI Analysis

AFM and AMF have issued a joint position paper supporting the EU Commission’s Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP) and setting out **five enablers** they see as conditions for effective, centralised EU‑level supervision by ESMA. This matters for compliance teams because it signals a medium‑term shift towards more **risk‑based, data‑driven, and ESMA‑centric supervision**, with impacts on funding models, governance expectations, data and reporting architecture, and enforcement across all major EU capital‑markets activities.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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

Compliance Impact

The immediate impact is strategic rather than operational, but non‑compliance with future ESMA‑level requirements on data, governance, and cross‑border conduct could lead to EU‑wide enforcement, higher sanctions, and constraints on passporting and market access. Early alignment with the five enablers will position firms better for the coming supervisory architecture and reduce transition risk once binding rules are adopted.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AFM source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance Market Abuse / Surveillance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

July 21st 2026

Administrative sanction of 21 July 2026

Administrative sanction imposed on Transnet Soc Ltd

AI Analysis

The CSSF has published an administrative sanction dated 21 July 2026 in respect of Transnet Soc Ltd, a South African issuer with Luxembourg as home Member State under the Transparency regime. Although the notice itself is very brief, it clearly continues a pattern of enforcement against Transnet for breaches of the Luxembourg Law of 11 January 2008 on transparency requirements for issuers (Transparency Law), including a prior EUR 15,000 fine for late publication of its annual financial report. For compliance teams, this underscores the CSSF’s willingness to publicly sanction and name issuers that fail to meet periodic disclosure obligations, even for relatively modest monetary amounts.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

31 March 2021 DEADLINE

– End of the financial year referenced in the prior CSSF sanction against Transnet Soc Ltd for failure to publish its annual financial report within the required time limit

15 November 2021

– CSSF imposed an administrative fine of EUR 15,000 on Transnet Soc Ltd under Article 25(2) of the Transparency Law for late publication of the annual financial report as of 31 March 2021

21 July 2026

– CSSF publishes the administrative sanction “Administrative sanction imposed on Transnet Soc Ltd”; this enforcement notice is made public in line with the Transparency Law’s publication requirements

TBD (within 3 months of CSSF decision)

– Statutory window during which Transnet Soc Ltd (or any sanctioned issuer) may lodge a court action against the CSSF decision with the Luxembourg Administrative Court under Article 27 of the Transparency Law

Compliance Impact

CSSF administrative fines under the Transparency Law may be modest in absolute value but carry material reputational and supervisory impact because the sanctions, the issuer’s name, and the failures are publicly disclosed. Persistent or repeated non‑compliance with transparency and disclosure obligations can trigger higher fines, closer supervisory scrutiny, and increased legal risk, including potential court actions and investor claims.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

🇮🇪 CBI News

July 21st 2026

Issue 14 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

All Firms

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 21st 2026

Councils,Finalization of the Corporate Governance Code (2026 Revision)

No description available.

Sectors:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

July 21st 2026

CSSF FAQ on Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) (Updated)

Clarifications regarding certain aspects of Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial sector (SFDR)Version 5

AI Analysis

The CSSF’s FAQ clarifies several SFDR disclosure points for Luxembourg fund managers and related entities, especially around Article 8/9 investment strategies, sustainable-investment methodology, and periodic reporting. It also signals supervisory expectations that disclosure changes can be “material” under CSSF circular rules and therefore may trigger formal review and authorisation requirements.

What Changed

- Article 8 funds must describe how the investment strategy actually enables the fund to meet the environmental and/or social characteristics disclosed to investors.
If an Article 8 fund relies mainly on an exclusion strategy, the CSSF expects the exclusion policy to be detailed enough for investors to understand how the stated characteristics are being met.
Article 9 funds cannot rely only on an exclusion strategy; they must invest in sustainable investments and use a positive selection process that demonstrates alignment with Article 2(17) SFDR.
For Article 9 funds, the CSSF expects sustainable-investment status to be maintained at all times, including on an ongoing basis during the life cycle of the fund.
Financial market participants should make available the methodology used to determine whether an investment is a sustainable investment, including any thresholds used for a pass-fail approach.

Suggested Considerations

Review all Article 8 pre-contractual disclosures to confirm that the stated investment strategy clearly explains how the fund’s environmental or social characteristics are achieved.
Strengthen any Article 8 exclusion-based strategy disclosures so they provide sufficient detail for investors to understand the connection between exclusions and the claimed sustainability characteristics.
Reassess all Article 9 product classifications to confirm that the portfolio is built around qualifying sustainable investments, not only exclusions.
Implement controls to verify that Article 9 holdings remain aligned with Article 2(17) SFDR on an ongoing basis throughout the fund lifecycle.
Document and retain the internal methodology used to assess sustainable-investment status, including any thresholds, and ensure it can be provided to investors or supervisors upon request.

Key Dates

02 December 2022

- CSSF published the SFDR FAQ clarifying supervisory expectations for Article 8 and Article 9 disclosures

01 January 2023 DEADLINE

- UCITS and AIFs disclosing under Article 8 or Article 9 must use the SFDR RTS periodic reporting templates in annual reports issued after this date

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance can lead to supervisory scrutiny, requests for remediation, and potential reclassification risk if a product cannot substantiate its Article 8 or Article 9 claims. The practical consequence is heightened greenwashing exposure and the possibility that disclosure changes may need formal review or authorisation before implementation.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerBankAll Firms

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement medium

July 20th 2026

ESMA publishes report on cross-border investment services supervision

ESMA publishes report on cross-border investment services supervision 20 July 2026 Supervisory convergence The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, today published its follow-up report to the Peer Review on the supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms. The report assesses the progress made by national competent authorities (NCAs) in implementing recommendations issued in 2022 and covers the Netherlands, German...

AI Analysis

ESMA’s report does **not introduce new binding rules**, but it does confirm that NCAs are being pushed to supervise cross-border investment services more intensively and in a more risk-based way. For compliance teams, this matters because firms with cross-border passports should expect tougher scrutiny of their business plans, stronger information requests, more targeted inspections, and closer coordination between home and host supervisors.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

2022

- ESMA’s original peer review identified shortcomings in the supervision of cross-border activities and issued recommendations to strengthen authorisation, supervision, cooperation, and enforcement

September 2025

- ESMA’s 2026 work programme says the follow-up on the peer review of cross-border provision activities of investment firms was expected to be launched around this time

20 July 2026

- ESMA published the follow-up report on the supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms

TBD (est. 2028)

- ESMA indicated in the earlier peer review context that it expected to carry out a follow-up assessment in two years to review improvements, which aligns with a later-stage review cycle

Compliance Impact

The compliance impact is medium to high because the report raises supervisory expectations without creating a new standalone rulebook, but it clearly signals more intense scrutiny of firms active across borders. Non-compliance can lead to inspections, enforcement action, remedial directives, and reputational harm, especially for firms whose cross-border footprint is large or retail-facing.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA News high

July 20th 2026

ESMA calls on firms to finalise preparations ahead of T+1 settlement deadlines

ESMA calls on firms to finalise preparations ahead of T+1 settlement deadlines 20 July 2026 Post Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU regulator and supervisor, has published a statement highlighting key deadlines and action points to be ready for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle in EU financial markets. With the move scheduled for 11 October 2027, ESMA underlines that 2026 is a critical year for market participants to finalise their preparations. The st...

Sectors:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇬🇧 BoE Enforcement high

July 20th 2026

PRA fines HDI Global SE £4,165,000 for inaccurate reporting of FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has imposed a financial penalty of £4,165,000 on HDI Global SE in connection with the submission of incorrect data to the PRA.

AI Analysis

The PRA has fined HDI Global SE £4,165,000 for multiple instances of inaccurate reporting of Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) liabilities and FSCS fee tariff data between August 2021 and August 2024, including defective “remediation” submissions. The case underscores that FSCS data is treated as prudentially critical, and that failures in governance, controls, and technical understanding of PRA Rulebook requirements will be pursued as breaches of Fundamental Rules 2 and 6, with substantial financial and supervisory consequences.

What Changed

- The PRA has explicitly reinforced that FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data are core prudential reporting metrics, and misreporting them may both impede risk assessment and cause underpayment...
The enforcement action clarifies that failures to consult the PRA Rulebook and applicable guidance on FSCS coverage and fee tariff methodologies constitute a breach of Fundamental Rule 2 (due skill,...
The PRA has signalled that the absence of effective written processes for calculating regulatory data, and lack of clear accountability, internal oversight, and challenge over those calculations,...
The case demonstrates that remediation submissions are subject to the same accuracy and governance expectations as original returns, and that errors in purported remediation will be treated as...
The PRA’s Early Account Scheme (EAS), formally incorporated into its enforcement policy in January 2024, is now clearly positioned as a mechanism that can materially reduce penalties where firms...

Suggested Considerations

Review and map all FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff reporting obligations under the PRA Rulebook and applicable guidance, ensuring the firm’s methodology aligns with regulatory definitions of FSCS-covered liabilities.
Conduct a detailed end-to-end review of regulatory reporting processes for FSCS data, including data sourcing, calculations, validations, and submission workflows, to identify and remediate control weaknesses.
Develop and document formal, robust written procedures that govern the calculation and validation of FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data, including change-control processes for methodologies.
Assign clear ownership and accountability for FSCS-related reporting within the firm’s governance framework, ensuring named individuals or functions are responsible for accuracy, completeness, and timely submission.
Strengthen internal oversight, challenge and review mechanisms over prudential and FSCS-related reporting, including regular independent checks by risk, compliance or internal audit.

Key Dates

August 2021

- Start of the relevant period during which HDI Global SE submitted incorrect FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data to the PRA

Summer 2023

- By this point, HDI Global SE had still not checked the PRA Rulebook or guidance on FSCS coverage and fee tariff methodology, illustrating the duration of governance and diligence failures

January 2024

- The Early Account Scheme (EAS) becomes part of the Bank of England’s enforcement policy for PRA firms and FMIs

August 2024

- End of the relevant period of misreporting, including errors in data submitted as purported remediation of earlier incorrect returns

November 2024

- The Bank of England updates its statutory statements of policy and procedure on enforcement, setting out the PRA’s approach to exercising enforcement powers under FSMA 2000

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance with PRA expectations on FSCS data accuracy and governance can result in multi-million-pound financial penalties, public enforcement action, and findings of breaches of Fundamental Rules, with knock-on impacts on supervisory intensity and reputational risk. Failures may also lead to underpayment of FSCS levies, with potential for backdated levy demands and broader scrutiny of the firm’s prudential reporting framework.

References

[1] lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e13d06f0-5743-4ad2-bbe...

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Insurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

July 20th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Demokratische Republik Kongo

Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung des Anhangs 1 der Verordnung vom 22. Juni 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber der Demokratischen Republik Kongo (SR 946.231.12) publiziert.

AI Analysis

FINMA is notifying the Swiss market that the UN sanctions committee changed the Democratic Republic of Congo sanctions list on **16 July 2026**, and Switzerland applied the update directly after SECO updated SESAM on **17 July 2026**. For compliance teams, this means sanctions screening, asset-freeze controls, and relationship monitoring had to be refreshed immediately because the Swiss measure takes effect without additional domestic delay.

What Changed

- The UN sanctions committee amended the list of sanctioned individuals, companies, and organizations relating to the Democratic Republic of Congo on 16 July 2026.
The change is directly applicable in Switzerland, so firms cannot wait for a separate Swiss implementing act before acting on the updated list.
SECO updated the Swiss sanctions database SESAM on 17 July 2026 and published the update on its website.
Financial intermediaries must implement the prohibitions set out in the ordinance, including freezing the assets of sanctioned persons.
Financial intermediaries must report the affected business relationships to SECO.

Suggested Considerations

Review sanctions screening results immediately against the updated Congo-related list in SESAM and any internal watchlists to identify matching clients, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
Freeze assets and block prohibited dealings involving newly designated persons, companies, or organizations as required by the ordinance.
Report affected business relationships to SECO in line with the sanctions ordinance requirements.
Perform enhanced internal clarifications under Article 6 GwG/AMLA whenever a sanctions hit or other red flags create suspicion.
File an immediate suspicious activity report with the Money Laundering Reporting Office under Article 9 GwG/AMLA if doubts cannot be resolved.

Key Dates

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇫🇷 AMF Consultation medium

July 20th 2026

The AMF publishes its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of the Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD)

Long term investment Shares The AMF publishes its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of the Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD)

AI Analysis

The AMF has submitted its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the review of the Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD), calling for stronger EU‑level harmonisation of shareholder rights, clearer rules on general meeting formats, and measures to support long‑term shareholder engagement. For compliance teams at listed issuers, intermediaries and custodians, this signals probable future changes to SRD II implementation that will affect general meeting organisation, shareholder identification and cross‑border voting processes across the EU.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

2007

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

2017

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

20 July 2026

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance risks are currently indirect but likely to become significant once the SRD review translates into binding EU law, with potential enforcement by national competent authorities on meeting formats, shareholder information flows and voting processes. Firms that rely heavily on flexible national options or minimalist SRD II implementation will face higher remediation and operational change costs if they delay preparation.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

July 20th 2026

TeamViewer SE: Bafin imposes administrative fine

On 16 July 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed an administrative fine amounting to €240,000 on TeamViewer SE on the grounds that the company had violated the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). The fact that TeamViewer SE had fallen victim to a cyberattack should have been disclosed by the company without delay as inside information.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed a €240,000 administrative fine on TeamViewer SE for failing to disclose a significant cyberattack as inside information without delay under Article 17(1) MAR. The case materially raises the bar for ad hoc disclosure of cyber incidents for German-listed issuers, confirming that major cyberattacks on technology-driven businesses are presumptively inside information requiring rapid public disclosure.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 17th 2026

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/1805 of 16 July 2026

amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF News

July 16th 2026

Mystery shopping visits to bank branches: the AMF calls on professionals to improve the quality of client questioning and the presentation of fees

Marketing Disclosure Obligations MIFID Investment advice Mystery shopping visits to bank branches: the AMF calls on professionals to improve the quality of client questioning and the presentation of fees

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation medium

July 16th 2026

SEC Proposes New E-Delivery Approach to Make Information More Readily Accessible and Useful for Investors

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed Regulation E-Delivery, a new rule that would expand the ability of issuers, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and others to use electronic delivery to satisfy information delivery requirements…

AI Analysis

The SEC has proposed **Regulation E‑Delivery**, a new, technology‑neutral rule that would allow electronic delivery to become the **default method** for satisfying many information delivery requirements under the federal securities laws, while preserving a right to paper on request. This is a material shift away from the long‑standing, guidance‑based and “affirmative consent” model, and will require firms to redesign their disclosure, investor communication and recordkeeping frameworks to comply with new notice, opt‑out and failure‑remediation obligations.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

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

TBD DEADLINE

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

TBD (post‑adoption) DEADLINE

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

TBD (post‑effective date) DEADLINE

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

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance could result in failures to meet statutory disclosure and delivery obligations, exposing firms to SEC enforcement, supervisory findings, investor complaints, and potential civil liability where investors allege inadequate or inaccessible information. Mismanaged transitions or poor controls around e‑delivery failures may also create conduct risk, reputational damage and remediation costs, particularly for retail and senior investors.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber Consumer Protection / Conduct

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇫🇷 AMF News

July 16th 2026

The AMF publishes a study on market-based financing in Paris for the period 2007–2025

Financing the economy Equity Fixed income The AMF publishes a study on market-based financing in Paris for the period 2007–2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 16th 2026

Cathaoirleach and Committee members, thank you for the invitation to be here today. I am joined by my colleagues Deputy Governor for Monetary and Financial Stability, Vasileios Madouros, and Colm Kincaid, Deputy Governor for Consumer and Investor Protection. The Economic Outlook Let me begin with the economic outlook. The global economy continues to face challenges and heightened uncertainty from the Middle East conflict and the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, with implications for energy...

AI Analysis

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) Governor used this Oireachtas hearing to restate that the CBI will act only within its statutory mandate on prospectus approval, while also signalling that the EU Prospectus Regulation framework has changed materially since 5 June 2026 because of Regulation (EU) 2024/2809. For compliance teams, the key point is that prospectus-related processes, disclosures, and approval planning should now be reviewed against the amended EU regime and the CBI’s existing approval timetable requirements, including the 90 working day decision rule for non-SME prospectuses and 100 working day rule for SMEs.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

20 July 2017

- The Prospectus Regulation entered into force at EU level

21 July 2019

- The Prospectus Regulation fully applied, and Ireland’s implementing regulations for the regime came into operation

31 March 2022

- New Irish Central Bank fee regulations for prospectus and related document approvals came into operation

7 March 2024

- The Central Bank’s revised Prospectus Regulatory Framework Q&A was published, updating operational guidance on approval, publication, and passporting matters

11 March 2024

- GEM rule amendments took effect for certain retail debt securities listings, providing related market infrastructure context

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance risk is high because a failed or delayed prospectus approval can block issuance, delay admission to trading, and disrupt capital raising. Firms also face execution and disclosure risk if they do not align their documentation and timetables to the amended EU regime and the CBI’s approval mechanics.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CBI source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 15th 2026

AIFM Reporting dashboard – December 2025

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇪🇺 ECB Guidance high

July 15th 2026

ECB clarification on ICAAPs and ILAAPs and respective package submissions

No description available.

AI Analysis

On 10 February 2025, the ECB published a clarification paper tightening expectations on ICAAP and ILAAP design and, critically, on how and when related information must be submitted in the SREP cycle. The core compliance impact is a shorter annual submission deadline, a two‑step (annual plus continuous) reporting model, and more formalised governance, forward‑looking planning, and capital distribution expectations that must be demonstrably embedded in banks’ ICAAP/ILAAP frameworks and Board‑level oversight.

What Changed

- Introduced a two‑step ICAAP/ILAAP submission model under the SREP: (1) annual submission of the main “ICAAP & ILAAP package” by 15 March and (2) continuous, year‑round submission of any new or...
Shortened the standard annual deadline for ICAAP/ILAAP information from 31 March to 15 March, reducing the preparation and governance window by roughly two weeks versus prior practice.
Confirmed that the clarifications apply from the SREP 2025 cycle onwards, with a general transition approach for 2025 and limited transitional flexibilities for banks whose internal processes cannot...
Required inclusion of two distinct, concise documents within the annual packages: a “Capital Adequacy Statement” and a “Liquidity Adequacy Statement” reflecting the management body’s formal view on...
Clarified governance expectations around capital and liquidity planning, including regular updates of governance frameworks to reflect external conditions and the submission of a complete risk...

Suggested Considerations

Review existing ICAAP and ILAAP submission calendars and internal governance timelines and formally reset them to ensure core packages can be prepared, approved by the management body, and submitted by 15 March each year.
Design and implement a documented two‑step submission process, including procedures for continuous, year‑round identification, approval and transmission to the ECB of any new or materially updated ICAAP/ILAAP‑relevant documents.
Develop, approve and embed the new Capital Adequacy Statement and Liquidity Adequacy Statement, ensuring they reflect the management body’s signed‑off view on adequacy and are supported by clear references to ICAAP/ILAAP analyses and results.
Update ICAAP and ILAAP governance frameworks to reflect ECB expectations, including explicit roles and responsibilities, escalation paths, periodic reviews triggered by external developments, and Board‑level oversight of capital and liquidity planning.
Compile and maintain a comprehensive risk inventory covering both normative and economic perspectives, and ensure it is aligned with business models, risk appetite frameworks, recovery plans, stress testing programmes and SREP submissions.

Key Dates

15 March (annually from 2025 onward) DEADLINE

- Recurring annual deadline for submission of the core ICAAP and ILAAP packages, including the Capital Adequacy Statement, Liquidity Adequacy Statement, risk inventory, stress testing information and liquidity stressed assumptions template

10 February 2025

- ECB publishes the clarification paper on ICAAPs and ILAAPs and respective package submissions, setting out new expectations on governance, content and submission processes

14 March 2025 DEADLINE

- For the SREP 2025 cycle only, general transition date by which all documents foreseen for annual submission must be provided to the ECB, marking the first application of the new two‑leg submission process and shortened deadline

15 March 2025 DEADLINE

- New general submission date for ICAAP and ILAAP information becomes effective, replacing the former 31 March deadline for annual packages and applying to ICAAP quantifications, ILAAP templates and other annual information

Continuous (from SREP 2025 cycle onward)

- Ongoing, year‑round obligation to submit to the ECB any new or significantly updated ICAAP/ILAAP‑relevant documents, together with a description and justification of changes and their implications for capital and liquidity adequacy

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the revised ICAAP/ILAAP expectations and submission deadlines can trigger SREP findings, higher Pillar 2 capital requirements, restrictions on distributions, and enhanced supervisory scrutiny. Persistent deficiencies in governance, buffers and forward‑looking adequacy assessments may also lead to qualitative measures, remedial action plans, and potential sanctions under the SSM framework.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ECB source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Bank

Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 15th 2026

NAB’s WealthHub fined over $1 million for reporting failures

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

July 14th 2026

CP11/26 – A tailored regime for captive insurance

Consultation paper 11/26

AI Analysis

The PRA has issued Consultation Paper CP11/26 proposing a **tailored prudential regime for UK captive insurance undertakings**, with responses due by 14 October 2026. This matters for compliance teams in insurance groups and large corporates because it will create a distinct authorisation and supervisory framework for captives under Solvency UK, potentially changing capital, governance, and reporting expectations and opening a new strategic option to domicile captives in the UK.

What Changed

- The PRA proposes to establish a dedicated UK regulatory regime for captive insurers, separate from the standard Solvency UK treatment for commercial (non‑captive) insurers.
Captive insurers would benefit from proportionate prudential requirements (for example simplified capital, reporting, and risk management expectations) reflecting their limited and group-focused risk...
The consultation seeks views on eligibility criteria for captives, likely including ownership (group‑owned), purpose (insuring or reinsuring parent/group risks), and restrictions on third‑party...
PRA proposes a UK authorisation and licensing pathway specifically tailored to captives, with adjusted expectations for business plans, risk appetites, and use of reinsurance and fronting structures.
The regime is intended to sit within Solvency UK rather than as a completely separate legislative framework, implying changes to the PRA Rulebook and supervisory statements rather than primary...

Suggested Considerations

Review CP11/26 in detail and perform an internal impact assessment on how the proposed captive regime would affect your group’s current or planned captive insurance structures, including domicile and regulatory capital profile.
Identify whether any existing insurance entities within the group may fall within the PRA’s proposed definition of a captive and assess whether reclassification would be beneficial or would trigger additional compliance work.
Prepare and submit a coordinated consultation response by 14 October 2026, addressing eligibility criteria, proportionality of capital and reporting requirements, and any operational or tax implications for your captive strategy.
Map existing governance, risk management, and internal control frameworks for captives against PRA’s proposed expectations and identify gaps that would need remediation ahead of the regime’s expected go‑live in mid‑2027.
Engage with group legal, tax, and treasury teams to evaluate whether onshoring an offshore captive to the UK, or establishing a new UK captive, becomes strategically attractive under the tailored regime, and model scenarios accordingly.

Key Dates

Summer 2026

– PRA (and FCA) indicated they would consult on a new UK captive insurance regime as part of their 2026 supervisory priorities and joint statements

14 October 2026 DEADLINE

– Deadline for responses to CP11/26 “A tailored regime for captive insurance”

Mid 2027

– Target implementation date for the new UK captive insurance regime, as indicated in prior PRA policy communications and government consultation responses

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the eventual captive regime (for example mis‑classification of entities, inadequate capital or governance relative to PRA expectations) could lead to authorisation issues, supervisory interventions, restrictions on business, or requirements to restructure existing captive arrangements. Given the regime will sit within Solvency UK, failures may also affect group capital positions and broader regulatory assessments of risk management adequacy.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

InsuranceBankAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA Policy high

July 14th 2026

PS16/26 – PRA rule changes to accommodate HM Treasury’s Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime

Policy statement 16/26

AI Analysis

PRA Policy Statement PS16/26 finalises rule changes across multiple CRR-related parts of the PRA Rulebook and Pillar 2 materials to align UK prudential rules with HM Treasury’s new Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (OPRR), effective 1 January 2027. The changes are primarily technical and clarificatory but have direct implications for how UK banks and PRA-designated investment firms treat and report overseas exposures, including institutions, public sector entities, covered bonds, and large exposures, once CRR equivalence provisions are replaced by the OPRR.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

Early July 2026

- PRA publishes PS16/26, confirming final rule changes to accommodate the OPRR and indicating that final rules have been made on the understanding that the OPRR statutory instrument will be made and in force prior to 1 January 2027

Q3 2026

- HM Treasury is expected to make the OPRR statutory instrument, with the PRA indicating it will amend or revoke its final rules if the instrument is amended prior to being made or is not made

02 July 2026

- HM Treasury lays before Parliament the Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026, which will replace relevant UK CRR equivalence provisions as the statutory OPRR framework

01 January 2027

- The Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 come into force and the PRA’s new rules under PS16/26 take effect, coinciding with the PRA’s broader implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards; from this date, UK CRR equivalence provisions are revoked and replaced by the OPRR framework and associated PRA Rulebook changes

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance could result in mis-stated risk-weighted assets, incorrect large exposure reporting, and flawed ICAAP submissions, exposing firms to supervisory findings, remediation requirements, and potential capital add-ons. Given the changes apply at the core of credit risk, large exposures, and Pillar 2 frameworks, failure to implement them properly may materially affect firms’ regulatory capital ratios and their ability to demonstrate robust prudential management.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

🇬🇧 FCA News

July 14th 2026

Streamlined rulebook to save asset managers £128m a year

The FCA has proposed a package of reforms that would tailor requirements proportionately for asset managers, cut costs for firms and give better data to supervise the sector more effectively. A large share of the £128m-a-year savings are expected to come from simpler Fund Reporting for Asset Management Entities (FRAME) requirements. These would be tailored to the specific circumstances of UK industry, delivering better data to make regulation more efficient.The package would also modernise an...

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 14th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.695 July 14, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇸🇬 MAS Guidance high

July 14th 2026

CMI 27/2018 Controls and Disclosures to be Implemented by Licensed Securities-Based Crowdfunding Operators

This circular applies to licensed securities-based crowdfunding (SCF) operators. It sets out the measures SCF operators should put in place to assess issuers, manage defaults or cessations, and disclose interest and default rates.

AI Analysis

MAS’s circular CMI 27/2018 imposes detailed **controls and disclosure standards** on licensed securities-based crowdfunding (SCF) operators, covering issuer due diligence, default/cessation management, interest and default rate reporting, and governance of auto-allocation tools. These expectations materially raise conduct, operational and disclosure obligations for SCF platforms and will drive changes to policies, investor communications, systems and governance frameworks.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

23 August 2018

– Initial version of CMI 27/2018 “Controls and Disclosures to be Implemented by Licensed Securities-Based Crowdfunding Operators” published by MAS

08 October 2018

Sectors:

Topics:

Bank

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

July 13th 2026

CSSF FAQ - MiFID II/MiFIR (Updated)

Version of 13 July 2026

AI Analysis

The CSSF has republished its MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ (Q&A) in a version dated 13 July 2026, consolidating guidance on investor protection, conduct of business, and reporting obligations applicable to Luxembourg MiFID firms. While the publication page itself is largely technical (cookies, website functioning), firms should treat the 13 July 2026 FAQ version as the current CSSF interpretative benchmark for MiFID II/MiFIR compliance, aligned with ESMA Q&As and recent EU‑level MiFID II/MiFIR review developments.

What Changed

Because the visible page content provided is limited to technical and cookie‑related information, the key points below focus on the regulatory substance of the CSSF MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ (Q&A) as the...
The CSSF confirms the application of MiFID II investor protection rules to Luxembourg investment service providers, including obligations on inducements, suitability, product governance, and best...
The FAQ reiterates that investment services providers must inform clients clearly whether their investment advice or services are provided on an independent or non‑independent basis, and explains the...
The FAQ clarifies that inducements are expressly prohibited when investment advice is provided on an independent basis and for portfolio management services, requiring firms to structure their...
The CSSF guidance reflects product governance obligations: manufacturers must define a target market for each financial instrument based on clients’ knowledge and experience, financial situation,...

Suggested Considerations

Review the latest CSSF MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ (13 July 2026 version) in full, comparing it against existing internal MiFID II/MiFIR policies, procedures, and controls to identify gaps or misalignments.
Confirm and, where necessary, update client‑facing disclosures to clearly state whether investment services (especially advice and portfolio management) are provided on an independent or non‑independent basis, and ensure that inducement arrangements are consistent with this classification.
Reassess inducement frameworks (commissions, fees, non‑monetary benefits) for investment advice and portfolio management to ensure that no prohibited inducements are received or retained where services are independent or involve portfolio management.
Review and update product governance frameworks, including target market definition processes and product approval procedures, to ensure that each instrument’s intended target market is properly documented and consistently used by distributors.
Examine best execution policies to confirm they are clear, detailed, and understandable to clients, and implement or enhance ongoing monitoring mechanisms (e.g. execution quality reports, periodic reviews) to evidence compliance with best execution obligations.

Key Dates

02 March 2026

- Most revised MiFIR transparency requirements under the MiFID II/MiFIR review (amending Delegated Regulation) apply at EU level, influencing the content and focus of national FAQs and supervisory guidance, including CSSF’s

13 July 2026 DEADLINE

- CSSF publishes/updates the MiFID II/MiFIR FAQ version dated 13 July 2026, which becomes the current reference point for CSSF supervisory expectations on MiFID II/MiFIR compliance

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with CSSF’s MiFID II/MiFIR expectations can lead to supervisory findings, remediation orders, administrative sanctions, and potential reputational damage, particularly where investor protection (suitability, inducements, best execution) is compromised. Given the 2026 EU‑level MiFID II/MiFIR review changes and the updated FAQ, firms that fail to update frameworks risk being assessed against a higher and more current supervisory benchmark.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets Investment Management

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

July 10th 2026

New Q&As available

New Q&As available 10 July 2026 Digital Finance and Innovation Sustainable finance Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU's securities markets regulator, has published the following question and answer: EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) Consulting activities to investors or undertakings (2889) Application of two working day notification period (2719) Scope of two working day notification period (2890) Access to dataset for factual error review (2891) Notification...

AI Analysis

What Changed

- ESMA added a Q&A clarifying consulting activities to investors or undertakings under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), which is relevant where a ratings provider’s advisory services may...
ESMA added Q&As on the application and scope of the two working day notification period under ESGRR, indicating that firms must apply the notification clock consistently and in line with ESMA’s...
ESMA clarified access to the dataset for factual error review under ESGRR, which affects how rated entities or issuers can review underlying data used in ESG ratings processes.
ESMA added a Q&A on notifications without a designated contact under ESGRR, which is relevant for governance and outreach workflows when a notification lacks an identified recipient.
ESMA clarified the obligation to consider issuer feedback under ESGRR, reinforcing that issuer comments cannot be ignored and must be handled through a documented review process.

Suggested Considerations

Review ESG ratings policies to ensure consulting, notification, issuer feedback, and factual error review procedures align with ESMA’s latest ESGRR Q&As.
Update internal case-handling workflows so notifications are screened for the designated contact issue and the two-working-day notification period is calculated consistently.
Document how your firm distinguishes internal-use ESG ratings or in-house financial services from externally provided ESG ratings activity.
Reassess whether any second-party opinion business can rely on the ESGRR exemption and record the legal basis for that conclusion.
Re-map MiCA permissions for custody, administration, transfer, and lending services to confirm the firm is not performing activities outside its authorisation scope.

Key Dates

10 July 2026

- ESMA publishes the new Q&As on ESGRR, MiCA, and MiFIR secondary market topics

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance risk is high because these Q&As affect how firms interpret regulatory scope, notification timing, and operational controls across sustainability, crypto, and market structure regimes. Firms that ignore the guidance may face supervisory challenge, remediation costs, and potential findings that their current procedures, permissions, or disclosures are misaligned with ESMA’s expectations.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

All FirmsAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇪🇺 ESMA News

July 10th 2026

ESMA launches data collection under the first phase of ESAP

ESMA launches data collection under the first phase of ESAP 10 July 2026 Market data The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU regulator and supervisor, has launched the collection of information from Officially Appointed Mechanisms (OAMs) and National Competent Authorities (NCAs) - “collection bodies” - for the first phase of implementation of the European Single Access Point (ESAP) . From today, OAMs and NCAs will start providing to ESAP the information and the metadata c...

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure ESG

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇺🇸 SEC Guidance high

July 10th 2026

SEC Office of Municipal Securities Updates FAQs for Registration of Municipal Advisors

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities today announced it has updated its Registration of Municipal Advisors FAQs webpage to offer more clarity on municipal advisor registration and recordkeeping requirements. The…

AI Analysis

The SEC Office of Municipal Securities has updated its **Registration of Municipal Advisors FAQs** to clarify when public‑private partnership (P3) participants must register as municipal advisors, how Form MA/MA‑I filers must treat **remote work locations as “offices”**, and the **recordkeeping scope** when advising on pricing of new municipal issues. The FAQs also add explicit guidance on **how to register** (including for sole proprietors) and cross‑reference existing SEC staff and MSRB resources, effectively tightening expectations around registration and books-and-records controls for municipal advisory activity.

What Changed

- The FAQs now provide targeted guidance for public‑private partnership (P3) market participants on when their activities in structuring or advising on P3 financings constitute municipal advisory...
The FAQs clarify for Form MA and Form MA‑I filers which remote work locations where municipal advisor‑related business is conducted must be disclosed as an “office,” affecting how firms classify and...
The FAQs add staff views on the scope of recordkeeping requirements when a municipal advisor provides advice on the pricing of a new issue of municipal securities, reinforcing obligations under...
A new FAQ explains how to register as a municipal advisor, directing prospective advisors (including sole proprietors) to an existing SEC staff Informational Bulletin and MSRB compliance resource...
The SEC reiterates that the final municipal advisor registration rules adopted in 2013 remain in force and emphasizes that firms and individuals conducting municipal advisory activity should “come...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct a comprehensive assessment of public‑private partnership activities to determine whether any structuring, advisory, or financing work for state or local governments involves “municipal advisory activities” that trigger SEC municipal advisor registration requirements.
Review all current and planned municipal advisory activities (including indirect advice through third‑party professionals) against the SEC’s municipal advisor definition, exclusions, and exemptions, and document registration determinations in a formal internal memo.
Identify all locations, including employees’ remote and home offices, where municipal advisor‑related business is conducted, and update Form MA and Form MA‑I filings to ensure accurate disclosure of “offices” according to the new FAQ guidance.
Review and, where necessary, update books‑and‑records policies and procedures to ensure that advice on pricing of new issues of municipal securities is fully captured, including communications, analyses, models, and recommendations, in line with SEC and MSRB recordkeeping standards.
Establish or update onboarding and change‑management controls to ensure that new municipal advisory lines of business, new P3 mandates, or expansions into remote work arrangements are reviewed by compliance for municipal advisor registration and office‑reporting implications before launch.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

ESMA’s 10 July 2026 publication is the first operational use of the FASTER Directive framework requiring annual disclosure of each Member State’s market capitalisation and market capitalisation ratio. For compliance teams, the key issue is not the data release itself but the downstream impact: Member States above the **1.5% threshold for four consecutive years** may fall within special withholding tax relief rules, affecting tax-processing, documentation, and eligibility assessments across the market.

What Changed

- ESMA has started publishing annual market capitalisation figures and market capitalisation ratios for each EU Member State under its FASTER Directive mandate.
The published figures are based on a harmonised methodology developed by ESMA in technical standards, using transaction data reported under MiFIR.
Market capitalisation is calculated from shares admitted to trading on a regulated market or multilateral trading facility, with aggregation at the level of the issuer’s legal address in the relevant...
The market capitalisation ratio is calculated as the Member State’s market capitalisation divided by the total market capitalisation of all Member States on the same date, expressed as a percentage.
Member States whose market size exceeds 1.5% of total EU market capitalisation for four consecutive years are subject to specific withholding tax relief-related requirements.

Suggested Considerations

Compliance teams should map whether any serviced Member State may approach or exceed the 1.5% threshold over a rolling four-year period and flag jurisdictions that could trigger special withholding tax relief consequences.
Tax operations teams should align withholding tax relief workflows with the ESMA-published ratios so that jurisdictional eligibility assessments use the current official figures.
Data and controls teams should document the calculation source, methodology, and reconciliation process for any internal use of ESMA market capitalisation data.
Investment firms and intermediaries should review client-facing tax-relief processes to ensure they can respond to changes in Member State status under FASTER.
Market-data and regulatory-reporting teams should prepare for annual updates by building a recurring review process around each ESMA publication cycle.

Key Dates

10 January 2025

- The FASTER Directive was published in the Official Journal of the EU, establishing the legal basis for ESMA’s market capitalisation mandate

June 2025

- ESMA published a consultation paper on the draft RTS methodology for calculating market capitalisation and the market capitalisation ratio

25 July 2025

- The consultation period for ESMA’s draft RTS methodology closed

October 2025

- ESMA was expected to finalise the RTS and submit them to the European Commission

16 January 2026

- The European Commission issued a final document referring to the FASTER framework and its threshold mechanics

Compliance Impact

The immediate regulatory impact is medium to high because the publication does not itself impose new firm-level filing duties, but it informs a threshold-based regime that can materially affect withholding tax relief eligibility and operational processing. Non-compliance risk rises where firms fail to update jurisdictional tax workflows, leading to incorrect relief treatment, delays, or disputes with counterparties and tax authorities.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure AML / Financial Crime Senior Managers / Governance

All FirmsBankBroker Dealer

🇫🇷 AMF News

July 10th 2026

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) takes note of the Paris Cour of Appel’s ruling in the Vivendi SE case

Financial disclosures & corporate financing The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) takes note of the Paris Cour of Appel’s ruling in the Vivendi SE case

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇦🇪 ADGM News

July 9th 2026

Adgm Registration Authority Publishes Amendments To The Commercial Legislation July 2026

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇪🇺 ESMA News

July 9th 2026

Financial firms keep EU carbon markets moving

Financial firms keep EU carbon markets moving 09 July 2026 Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU financial market regulator and supervisor, has published its t hird annual market report on EU carbon markets . The report shows that financial intermediaries are central to the functioning of the EU carbon market. They provide liquidity, act as counterparties to non-financial firms, and help compliance entities access allowances and manage price risk. Investment fir...

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

July 9th 2026

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers publishes a summary of its anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism inspections

Anti-money Laundering Sanctions & settlements Supervision The Autorité des Marchés Financiers publishes a summary of its anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism inspections

AI Analysis

The AMF has published a synthesis of 46 AML/CFT and Automatic Exchange of Information (AEI) inspections conducted between 01 January 2022 and 31 December 2025, which resulted in 16 sanctions, 16 settlements and 16 remedial follow‑up letters. The publication is explicitly positioned as part of the AMF’s 2026 supervisory priorities and its Impact 2027 strategy, and it clearly signals that AML/CFT and AEI failings in the French investment and advisory sector will continue to drive both enforcement and structural remediation.

What Changed

- The AMF has formalised and publicly communicated its enforcement findings and expectations on AML/CFT and AEI, turning past inspection outcomes into forward‑looking supervisory benchmarks for 2026...
AML/CFT frameworks must move from generic and incomplete documentation to precise, activity‑specific procedures that clearly reflect the firm’s business model, products, distribution channels and...
AML/CFT risk mapping must be personalised, complete, and demonstrably linked to the level and type of customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring applied; purely theoretical or non‑operational risk...
Firms must implement robust oversight and documented supervision of delegates, distributors, service providers and other third parties involved in KYC or onboarding, rather than relying on unverified...
Client, beneficial owner and source‑of‑funds information must be systematically collected, stored, updated and traceable, including clear identification and ongoing review of politically exposed...

Suggested Considerations

Review and comprehensively update AML/CFT written policies and procedures to ensure they are complete, precise and clearly adapted to the firm’s specific activities, products, distribution channels and client profiles.
Redesign AML/CFT risk mapping to be firm‑specific, cover all relevant money laundering and terrorist financing risks, and explicitly link identified risks to the intensity of customer due diligence and transaction monitoring measures applied.
Implement a formalised framework for the oversight of delegates, distributors, service providers and other third parties performing KYC or onboarding tasks, including documented due diligence, contractual obligations, and periodic testing of their AML/CFT controls.
Conduct a gap analysis of client and beneficial owner data collection, storage and updating processes to ensure full traceability of KYC information, including clear documentation of PEP identification and periodic review.
Enhance due diligence procedures for investment and divestment operations involving fund assets, including documented risk assessments and escalation paths for unusual or higher‑risk transactions.

Key Dates

01 January 2022

- Start of the period covered by the AMF’s AML/CFT and AEI inspections synthesis (inspections leading to follow‑up actions)

June 2024

- Creation of the European Anti‑Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Authority (AMLA), with a mandate over financial‑sector AML/CFT supervision and rulemaking

31 December 2025

- End of the review period for inspections and enforcement outcomes included in the synthesis

January 2026

- Transfer at EU level of AML/CFT mandates and functions to AMLA and start of its 2026‑2028 work programme, including completion of the Single Rulebook and supervisory convergence

09 February 2026

- AMLA launches public consultations on draft regulatory technical standards for AML/CFT supervision and data (RTS/ITS), foreshadowing future harmonised requirements

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the AML/CFT and AEI obligations highlighted by the AMF carries a high risk of formal enforcement, including sanctions, settlements, public reputational damage and increased supervisory attention. Given AMLA’s emerging role and EU‑wide data sharing, persistent deficiencies may also lead to cross‑border supervisory escalation and greater scrutiny from other authorities and counterparties.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇦🇪 DFSA News

July 9th 2026

Notice of Consultation Paper Release: CP 174

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇸🇬 MAS News

July 9th 2026

MAS Proposes Regulatory Changes to Facilitate Faster Approvals of New Fund Types

Singapore, 9 July 2026… The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) today published a consultation paper seeking feedback on proposed amendments to the Code on Collective Investment Schemes (CIS Code). The proposed amendments seek to enable a wider range of new fund product types to be authorised for retail offer through a more streamlined process, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place for retail investors.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇦🇪 DFSA News

July 9th 2026

The DFSA publishes 9th Audit Monitoring Report, underscoring strengthened audit…

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇺🇸 SEC News

July 8th 2026

SEC to Host Virtual Roundtable on Modernizing IPOs and Expanding Access to Public Markets

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and the Division of Corporation Finance will co-host a livestreamed discussion on Monday, July 13, 2026, at 2 p.m. to re-examine…

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement medium

July 8th 2026

ESMA publishes technical standards on CCP admission criteria elements

ESMA publishes technical standards on CCP admission criteria elements 08 July 2026 CCP Guidelines and Technical standards The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published its Final Report on the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) concerning the central counterparties’ (CCPs) admission criteria elements , following the review of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR 3). EMIR 3 introduces amendments to the p...

AI Analysis

ESMA’s Final Report on the RTS for CCP admission criteria elements clarifies the factors CCPs must assess when determining who can become a clearing member, with specific attention to **non-financial counterparties** and **sponsored membership**. For compliance teams, the practical impact is that CCPs will need to evidence that their admission criteria are risk-based, proportionate, transparent, and aligned with EMIR 3, while clearing members—especially NFCs—should expect more structured scrutiny of financial resources, operational capability, and membership model fit.

What Changed

- CCPs must base admission criteria on a comprehensive risk assessment of the risks posed by clearing members and ensure the criteria reflect those risks.
CCPs must consider whether clearing members have sufficient financial resources to meet obligations arising from participation in the CCP.
CCPs must assess whether clearing members have access to reliable credit, liquidity, and foreign exchange facilities commensurate with the scale and nature of their clearing activity.
CCPs must examine the clearing member’s operational capacity to meet CCP obligations, including readiness to support clearing operations and margin obligations.
CCPs must take account of the client clearing activity of a clearing member, including the relative importance of that activity and the member’s ability to meet margin requirements if clients default.

Suggested Considerations

CCPs should review their current admission criteria to ensure they are explicitly tied to a documented assessment of risks posed by each clearing member type.
CCPs should update membership rulebooks and onboarding procedures to reflect the RTS requirement to consider financial resources, operational capacity, and liquidity support arrangements.
CCPs should build or refine documented methodologies for assessing NFC clearing members’ ability to meet margin and default fund obligations.
CCPs should ensure sponsored membership frameworks clearly define how the sponsor’s support, the sponsored member’s profile, and relevant risk controls are assessed for eligibility purposes.
CCPs should prepare to publish clear admission criteria, application steps, timelines, required documentation, and explanations for any category-specific requirements.

Key Dates

Q4 2025

- ESMA conducted a public consultation on the draft RTS

November 2025

- ESMA held a public hearing on the draft RTS

05 January 2026

- The consultation period referenced in ESMA’s prior consultation paper closed

08 July 2026

- ESMA published the Final Report on the RTS concerning CCP admission criteria elements

TBD (post

08 July 2026); - The RTS will be submitted to the European Commission for endorsement

Compliance Impact

The compliance impact is moderate to high because the RTS will shape how CCPs admit or exclude clearing members and how those decisions must be justified, documented, and disclosed. Failure to align admission frameworks with the final RTS could expose CCPs to supervisory challenge, remediation requirements, and operational delays in onboarding members or updating access terms.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

July 8th 2026

SEC Small Business Advisory Committee to Explore Modernizing Market Access

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee announced that it will hold a meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 2026 at 10 a.m. to explore ways to modernize public market access and encourage IPOs…

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

🇬🇧 FCA News

July 8th 2026

FCA appoints new members to the Secondary Markets Advisory Committee

The FCA has appointed members to its advisory committee on secondary markets for the period July 2026 to July 2028. The committee will increase from 25 to 27 members. The Secondary Markets Advisory Committee supports the FCA’s work in wholesale secondary markets in equities, fixed income, foreign exchange, and commodities markets across securities, futures, swaps, and options markets. The committee includes representatives from firms operating from across the different segments of financial m...

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance medium

July 8th 2026

Statistical Notice 2026/07 - Bank of England Levy: Notification Document Levy Year 2026/27

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

The Bank of England has published the **Bank of England Levy Notification Document for the 2026/27 Levy year**, formally stating its anticipated levy requirement and triggering the invoicing process for levy payers. This matters for compliance and finance teams because it confirms the **chargeable amount for the 2026/27 year under the Bank of England Levy Framework**, and starts the clock on internal budgeting, approvals and payment controls for what is now a material fixed annual cost of BoE policy functions.

What Changed

- The Bank of England has released the annual Notification Document for the 2026/27 Bank of England Levy, confirming the anticipated levy requirement for the current levy year under paragraph 1.16 of...
For 2026/27, the Bank of England Levy is set at £700 million, reflecting both funding of the Bank’s policy functions and the transition away from the legacy Cash Ratio Deposits (CRD) scheme, with a...
Within this £700 million total, the Bank is recovering £343 million as net Levy from industry, separate from operational policy costs of approximately £357 million, with £307 million specifically...
The Levy sits within the Bank’s overall fee and levy regime which is constrained such that the Bank’s operating budget and core levies may increase by no more than consumer price inflation in...
The Notification Document underlines that invoices for individual Levy Payers will follow, consistent with the Framework and associated terms and conditions, and that levy payers will be billed by...

Suggested Considerations

Confirm internally which group entities are Levy Payers for the 2026/27 Bank of England Levy and reconcile this against the scope set out in the Bank of England Levy Framework Document and related BoE fee regime policy statements.
Review the Bank of England Levy Notification Document for 2026/27 alongside the 2024 Levy Framework Document and prior-year notices to understand how the bank’s individual assessment may change relative to 2025/26.
Ensure that Recognised Contact and Invoice Contact details submitted to the Bank are up to date, consistent with Statistical Notice 2026/03 requirements, so that levy invoices and operational communications are received and actioned promptly.
Set up or confirm internal approval, purchase order and payment processes to ensure invoices for the Bank of England Levy 2026/27 are validated, coded and paid in accordance with the Bank’s payment terms and internal delegation of authority.
Update regulatory cost forecasts, budgets and FTP (funds transfer pricing) or product pricing models to reflect the 2026/27 levy quantum and any change in allocation across entities or business lines.

Key Dates

In or around July 2026

- The Bank of England emails invoices for the Bank of England Levy to Levy Payers, setting out the levy amount payable for the 2026/27 Levy Year

Levy Year 2026/27 (1 April 2026 – 31 March 2027, by inference from BoE and FCA levy year conventions)

- Period to which the Bank of England Levy Requirement and the Notification Document relate

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance primarily creates financial and operational risk, including late-payment charges or escalation by the Bank of England, as well as potential reputational issues with the prudential supervisor. Given the Levy funds core policy functions, repeated failures or disputes around payment could attract heightened supervisory scrutiny and questions over governance, systems and controls in managing regulatory obligations.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Insurance & Pensions

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 8th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.694 July 8, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerInsurance

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

July 8th 2026

PS17/26 – Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27

Policy statement 17/26

AI Analysis

PS17/26 confirms the Bank of England’s and PRA’s final **fees and levies rates for 2026/27**, including a 3% overall increase in the Bank’s core levies (within CPI) but a small **reduction** in the PRA levy and a clarified mechanism for the “Cost of Transition” away from the legacy Cash Ratio Deposit (CRD) model. For compliance and finance teams in PRA‑regulated firms, this directly affects **prudential fee budgets, cost allocation models, and forecasting**, and requires understanding of the new transition adjustment that can materially change the Bank of England Levy as interest rates move.

What Changed

- The Bank’s core levies (Bank of England Levy, PRA Levy, FMI Levy, and other core levies) are constrained to grow by no more than CPI in 2026/27, with the Bank’s operating costs and associated core...
Within this 3% cap, the Bank of England Levy (operational policy cost component) is budgeted to increase from £328 million (2025/26 budget) to £353 million in 2026/27, an 8% year‑on‑year rise driven...
The PRA Levy is set to decrease slightly from £350 million (2025/26) to £345 million in 2026/27, a 1% reduction reflecting the PRA’s lower overall Total Funding Requirement and a different investment...
The FMI Levy is budgeted to increase from £17 million (2025/26 budget) to £18 million in 2026/27, representing a 3% rise in costs for financial market infrastructure supervision.
Overall, the Bank’s core levies (Bank of England Levy, PRA Levy, FMI Levy) are forecast to move from £695 million (2025/26 budget) to £715 million in 2026/27, a £20 million (3%) increase within the...

Suggested Considerations

Review the PS17/26 final numbers and tables to identify your firm’s applicable PRA fee‑block(s), the applicable Bank of England Levy and FMI Levy components, and quantify the 2026/27 impact relative to 2025/26.
Update internal regulatory fee and levy forecasts, budgets, and accrual models to incorporate the 3% increase in core Bank levies, the 1% reduction in the PRA Levy, and any firm‑specific changes driven by business volumes or fee‑block allocations.
For treasury and finance teams, model the Cost of Transition by stress‑testing scenarios where Bank Rate is above or below the legacy CRD gilt return, to understand potential upward or downward adjustments to the Bank of England Levy and reflect this in multi‑year financial planning.
Ensure that board and relevant governance committees (e.g. Audit Committee, Risk Committee) are briefed on the 2026/27 levy changes, including the Cost of Transition mechanism, and that any material budget variances versus prior plans are explained and approved.
For firms previously affected by the CRD scheme, update internal regulatory funding documentation and policies to remove references to CRD funding and to describe the new levy‑based and Cost of Transition arrangements, ensuring consistency with PS17/26 and the 2024 Bank of England Levy Framework.

Key Dates

March 2024

– Legacy Cash Ratio Deposit (CRD) non‑interest‑bearing balances are converted into remunerated central bank reserves and the corresponding gilts portfolio is transferred to the Bank’s Banking Department, triggering the start of the Cost of Transition mechanism

17 April 2026

– PRA publishes CP7/26 “Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27”, consulting on draft fee rates, AFR and TFR for the 2026/27 fee year

15 May 2026 DEADLINE

– Deadline for firms to submit consultation responses on CP7/26 to the PRA

Early July 2026

– PRA publishes PS17/26 setting the final regulated fees and levies, including final 2026/27 PRA Levy, FMI Levy, Bank of England Levy amounts, and the application of the Cost of Transition mechanism for the 2026/27 fee year

From July 2026

– FCA/PRA joint invoicing cycle for 2026/27 periodic fees and levies begins; firms start to receive invoices incorporating the PRA Levy, Bank of England Levy, FMI Levy, and related statutory levies for the 2026/27 fee year

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with PRA and Bank of England fee and levy obligations, including late or non‑payment, can result in surcharges, debt collection, restrictions on permissions, and potentially enforcement action, with reputational and prudential supervision consequences.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsuranceAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

July 8th 2026

Administrative sanction of 2 March 2026

Administrative sanction imposed on PingPong Europe S.A.

AI Analysis

The CSSF has imposed an administrative fine of EUR 12,000 on PingPong Europe S.A., a Luxembourg-authorised **electronic money institution**, by decision dated 2 March 2026 and published on 8 July 2026. The case signals the CSSF’s increasing enforcement focus on payment and e‑money institutions, and should be read together with CSSF Circular 26/906 as a practical warning that weaknesses in governance, safeguarding and reporting will attract public sanctions.

What Changed

(From the enforcement notice itself, there are no new rules; the impact is interpretative and enforcement‑related.)
CSSF confirms that authorised electronic money institutions are subject to active supervisory and enforcement scrutiny, including public administrative sanctions for regulatory breaches.
The sanction demonstrates that failures which may appear operational or procedural can nonetheless result in monetary fines and public naming, reinforcing the need for robust compliance frameworks in...
The case is likely to be assessed by CSSF in light of the new governance, risk management and safeguarding expectations introduced under CSSF Circular 26/906 for payment and e‑money institutions,...
The public nature of the sanction underscores CSSF’s use of transparency as a deterrent tool, increasing reputational risk for firms that do not comply with licensing, governance, reporting or...

Suggested Considerations

Review the CSSF sanction against PingPong Europe S.A. and identify which categories of requirements (e.g. governance, safeguarding of client funds, reporting, outsourcing, internal controls) were implicated, then map these to your own control framework.
Conduct a gap analysis against CSSF Circular 26/906, focusing on central administration, internal governance, risk management, and safeguarding of client funds for payment and e‑money institutions.
Update policies, procedures and internal control documentation governing payment services, e‑money issuance, safeguarding (segregation, reconciliations), outsourcing and IT connectivity to ensure alignment with CSSF Circular 26/906.
Ensure that a clearly designated member of the management body holds documented responsibility for oversight of safeguarding arrangements and compliance with CSSF requirements for payment and e‑money institutions.
Implement or enhance daily reconciliations and robust segregation of client funds accounts, supported by periodic internal reviews and testing of safeguarding controls.

Key Dates

20 January 2026

– CSSF publishes Circular 26/906 on central administration, internal governance and risk management for payment and e‑money institutions, raising supervisory expectations for the sector

2 March 2026

– CSSF issues the administrative sanction decision imposing an administrative fine of EUR 12,000 on PingPong Europe S.A. as an electronic money institution

30 June 2026

– Effective date of CSSF Circular 26/906, from which strengthened governance, risk management and safeguarding requirements apply to payment and e‑money institutions

8 July 2026

– CSSF publicly publishes the administrative sanction of 2 March 2026, formally informing the market and stakeholders

Compliance Impact

The compliance impact is high for Luxembourg‑authorised payment and electronic money institutions, given the combination of a formal monetary sanction and public disclosure, which increases both regulatory and reputational risk. Continued or serious non‑compliance with governance, safeguarding or reporting obligations could lead to larger fines, restrictions on business, or, in extreme cases, licence withdrawal.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Payment ProviderFintech

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 8th 2026

Balance sheet total and net result of specialised PFS

Situation as at 31 December 2024

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇯🇵 JFSA Enforcement high

July 7th 2026

Public Comment,Publication of the finalized "the Partial Amendment to the Designation of a country or region under Articles 17-2 and 17-3 of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds" after public consultation

No description available.

AI Analysis

Japan’s Financial Services Agency (JFSA) has finalized a partial amendment to the *designation of countries and regions* under Articles 17-2 and 17-3 of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds (APTCP), expanding the list of foreign jurisdictions that are subject to Japan’s crypto/e-money **travel rule** framework. The change matters because Japanese cryptoasset and electronic payment instrument service providers must now apply full originator/beneficiary information transmission when dealing with additional foreign VASPs in newly designated jurisdictions, and must adjust their AML/financial crime controls and routing logic accordingly by 3 August 2026.

What Changed

- Japan has finalized a partial amendment to the list of designated countries/regions under Articles 17-2 and 17-3 of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal...
The amendment expands the set of foreign jurisdictions for which Japanese firms must apply travel rule obligations when transferring cryptoassets and electronic payment instruments to foreign VASPs,...
For transfers of cryptoassets and electronic payment instruments from Japanese VASPs to foreign VASPs, travel rule obligations apply only when the counterparty VASP is located in a jurisdiction...
Transfers to foreign VASPs in non-designated jurisdictions remain outside the Japanese travel rule transmission obligation, reflecting JFSA’s concern about regulatory ineffectiveness where equivalent...
The amendment confirms that the travel rule applies to both cryptoassets (virtual assets, VAs) and electronic payment instruments, including stablecoins (SCs) handled by Cryptoasset Exchange Service...

Suggested Considerations

Review and obtain the official Attachment to identify the five newly added jurisdictions and verify their exact legal names and any specific conditions attached to their designation.
Update internal jurisdiction lists and travel rule mapping to reflect all currently designated countries and regions under Articles 17-2 and 17-3, including the newly added five jurisdictions, ensuring that this mapping is embedded in transaction routing and screening engines.
Revise travel rule implementation procedures so that originator and beneficiary information is consistently transmitted for all transfers of cryptoassets and electronic payment instruments from Japanese VASPs to foreign VASPs located in designated jurisdictions, including the new additions.
Confirm that no de minimis threshold is applied in practice to covered transactions and that systems are configured to send travel rule data regardless of transaction size when the counterparty is in a designated jurisdiction.
Update customer and counterparty onboarding documentation and contractual terms for foreign VASPs in newly designated jurisdictions to reflect their status as travel rule counterparties and any data-sharing, security, and retention requirements.

Key Dates

Topics:

Asset ManagerAll Firms

Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇸🇬 MAS Consultation medium

July 7th 2026

ID 08/26 Consultation Paper on Proposed Framework for Protected Cell Companies in Singapore

Inform insurers on the issuance of Consultation Paper on Proposed Framework for Protected Cell Companies in Singapore.

AI Analysis

MAS has launched Consultation Paper P013-2026 on a **Proposed Framework for Protected Cell Companies (PCCs)** in Singapore, with a consultation window from 07 July 2026 to 07 August 2026. The proposals would introduce a new corporatestructure for MAS-licensed insurance-related entities (including captives, ILS vehicles and sovereign risk pools) that enables statutory segregation of assets and liabilities by cell, materially affecting structuring, risk‑transfer and prudential oversight for insurance groups.

What Changed

- MAS proposes introducing a Protected Cell Company (PCC) as a new corporate structure comprising a single legal entity with assets and liabilities statutorily segregated into distinct cells within...
The PCC structure is intended to be available only to MAS-licensed entities engaged in captive insurance, insurance‑linked securities (ILS) and sovereign risk pooling activities, not generally to all...
Each PCC will have a core and multiple cells, with ring‑fencing of assets and liabilities such that creditors of one cell should not have recourse to assets of other cells or the core, subject to...
The framework is positioned to enable multiple risk issuances and programs within one vehicle, improving cost and operational efficiency compared with establishing multiple standalone insurers or...
MAS signals that the PCC framework will complement existing special purpose reinsurance and alternative risk‑transfer structures, and is conceptually aligned with Singapore’s broader approach to...

Suggested Considerations

Review the MAS Consultation Paper P013-2026 in detail and map proposed PCC requirements against your current and planned captive, reinsurance, ILS and sovereign risk pool structures.
Conduct an internal impact assessment on how PCC introduction would affect corporate structuring, capital allocation, risk management, and policyholder/investor protections within your group.
Identify potential use cases for PCCs (e.g. multi‑cell captives, collateralised reinsurance platforms, ILS issuance vehicles, sovereign risk pools) and assess legal, tax, accounting and regulatory implications for each use case.
Engage legal, compliance, actuarial and treasury functions to develop a coordinated response to MAS addressing prudential treatment, segregation mechanics, governance expectations and disclosure considerations for PCCs.
Prepare and submit detailed consultation feedback to MAS by 07 August 2026, including any requested clarifications, suggested safeguards, or recommended scope limitations or expansions for PCC usage.

Key Dates

07 July 2026

- MAS publishes Circular ID 08/26 and Consultation Paper P013-2026 on the Proposed Framework for Protected Cell Companies in Singapore, opening the consultation

07 August 2026

- Closing date for submissions to MAS on the PCC consultation paper

Compliance Impact

Non‑engagement with the consultation could result in a PCC framework that does not adequately reflect your business model, potentially creating future compliance burden or limiting structuring options. Once final rules are issued, failure to align PCC usage with MAS requirements could lead to supervisory intervention, restrictions on business lines, or enforcement action for governance, prudential or conduct shortcomings.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original MAS source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

InsuranceAll Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇪 DFSA News

July 7th 2026

The DFSA proposes significant updates to its Collective Investment Fund…

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation high

July 6th 2026

ESMA publishes preliminary findings on the Active Account Requirement and the first Annual Report of the Joint Monitoring Mechanism

ESMA publishes preliminary findings on the Active Account Requirement and the first Annual Report of the Joint Monitoring Mechanism 06 July 2026 CCP The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published the Interim Report of the Effectiveness of the Active Account Requirement and the First Annual Report of the Joint Monitoring Mechanism . Preliminary findings on the Active Account Requirement Based on available data, ana...

AI Analysis

ESMA’s interim report on the EMIR 3 Active Account Requirement (AAR) and the first Annual Report of the Joint Monitoring Mechanism (JMM) confirm that the AAR is operational, materially impacting EU clearing behaviour and beginning to shift activity from Tier 2 (third‑country) CCPs to EU CCPs. For compliance teams, this marks a move from regime design to supervisory assessment: firms subject to AAR must now assume their notifications, clearing patterns, and reporting will be benchmarked against ESMA’s evolving effectiveness methodology and cross‑sectoral monitoring of EU clearing risks.

What Changed

- ESMA has published an Interim Report on the effectiveness of the Active Account Requirement, covering implementation and market impact during 2025 and early 2026, and explicitly framing this as the...
ESMA confirms that roughly 500 entities have formally notified ESMA and national competent authorities that they are subject to the AAR, indicating that competent authorities now have a defined...
Notified entities represent more than 90% of notional outstanding held by EU entities in relevant AAR‑scope derivatives, signalling supervisory focus on a concentrated set of high‑exposure...
ESMA identifies early signs of increased clearing activity at EU CCPs, particularly among smaller entities, including some full relocation of positions from Tier 2 CCPs to EU CCPs for AAR‑relevant...
ESMA notes a gradual but limited shift in market shares from systemically important Tier 2 CCPs to EU CCPs in certain AAR‑related products, indicating that supervisors will monitor market‑share...

Suggested Considerations

Confirm whether your entity (and any funds or branches) is subject to the Active Account Requirement by assessing EMIR clearing obligation status and relevant notional clearing volumes against EMIR 3 thresholds for AAR‑scope derivatives.
Implement and document annual stress‑testing of the active account arrangements, including at least one test per year, to evidence that positions and new trades can be shifted from Tier 2 CCPs to EU CCPs under stress scenarios.
Map and quantify exposures to Tier 2 CCPs across AAR‑relevant derivatives, and establish an internal monitoring framework to track shifts in clearing volumes between Tier 2 CCPs and EU CCPs in line with AAR objectives.
Align trade booking, clearing workflows, and client documentation so that the required minimum number of trades per relevant subcategory and contract class can be cleared through the EU active account on an annual average basis, taking into account representativeness requirements where applicable.
Prepare to submit the first AAR report by 31 July 2026, ensuring that systems and controls can capture and report activity from 25 June 2025 to 30 June 2026 in accordance with ESMA’s reporting templates and instructions.

Key Dates

24 December 2024

– EMIR 3 enters into force, establishing the legal basis for the Active Account Requirement and related RTS framework

2025 (full year)

– First year of operation of the Joint Monitoring Mechanism, covering monitoring of AAR implementation and broader EU clearing landscape developments, as described in the JMM’s first Annual Report

25 June 2025 DEADLINE

– Active Account Requirement becomes applicable, starting the reference period for AAR compliance and reporting and triggering obligations to maintain an active account at an EU CCP for specified derivatives

February 2026 (as of)

– Approximately 500 entities have notified ESMA and national competent authorities that they are subject to the AAR, marking a key supervisory data‑collection milestone

26 February 2026 DEADLINE

– Regulatory Technical Standards specifying detailed AAR conditions, including operational obligations, stress‑testing, activity and reporting requirements, enter into force, operationalising how the AAR must be met in practice

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the AAR and associated reporting and operational requirements raises significant supervisory and financial stability concerns, with a high risk of regulatory intervention, enforcement, and potential restrictions on clearing arrangements, especially for firms with large exposures to Tier 2 CCPs. Given ESMA’s explicit focus on effectiveness and systemic risk channels, persistent weaknesses in AAR implementation may also affect prudential assessments, stress‑testing outcomes, and broader supervisory views of CCP and clearing‑member risk management.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA News

July 6th 2026

ESMA selects Etrading Software (Netherlands) B.V. as Consolidated Tape Provider for OTC derivatives

ESMA selects Etrading Software (Netherlands) B.V. as Consolidated Tape Provider for OTC derivatives 06 July 2026 Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has selected Etrading Software (Netherlands) B.V. as the Consolidated Tape Provider (CTP) for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. This constitutes an important step in improving transparency for OTC derivatives markets under the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulat...

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Investment Management Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation medium

July 6th 2026

Public consultation by ESMA until 12 August 2026 on simplifying EU Taxonomy disclosure framework

No description available.

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched a public consultation (via CSSF notification) on its technical advice to the European Commission for simplifying the EU Taxonomy disclosure framework, focusing on selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act and reducing reporting burdens. This matters for compliance teams because it is the first formal step in the review of Article 8 Taxonomy disclosure KPIs that will likely change how financial and non‑financial undertakings calculate and disclose Taxonomy‑related indicators from around Q3 2027.

What Changed

- ESMA is consulting on technical advice to the European Commission specifically targeting selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act (Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation), including...
The stated policy objective is simplification of the EU Taxonomy disclosure framework while preserving decision‑useful information for investors and supervisors.
ESMA aims to reduce reporting burdens for market participants, notably corporates and financial institutions subject to Taxonomy Article 8 disclosures.
The consultation covers selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act, with the European Commission having requested focused advice on: OpEx KPI of non‑financial firms; Commissions and...
ESMA is proposing more pragmatic approaches to group‑level reporting for mixed groups, including reporting at parent‑undertaking level to reduce complexity for conglomerates.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct an internal impact assessment of current Taxonomy Article 8 KPI calculation and reporting processes, focusing on OpEx, Commissions and Fees, Trading Book, and Underwriting KPIs, to identify pain points and simplification priorities.
Prepare and submit a response to ESMA’s consultation by 12 August 2026, either directly or via industry associations, articulating specific operational, data, and system challenges and concrete proposals for simplification.
Register for and attend ESMA’s public hearing on 22 July 2026 to understand the detailed proposals, ask clarifying questions, and align internal positions ahead of submission.
Coordinate with regulatory affairs, sustainability, risk, and finance functions to develop a unified institutional position on the desired design of revised KPIs and group‑level reporting under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.
Map dependencies between Taxonomy Article 8 data and other ESG reporting (including SFDR product disclosures and CSRD/ESRS reporting) to anticipate how changes to KPIs may affect cross‑framework consistency and data architecture.

Key Dates

01 July 2026

- ESMA launches its public consultation on simplifying the EU Taxonomy disclosure framework and technical advice on selected KPIs under the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act

22 July 2026

- ESMA holds a public hearing to present its proposals and engage with stakeholders on the consultation

12 August 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to ESMA’s consultation on Taxonomy disclosure simplification

By October 2026

- ESMA (and other ESAs) are expected to deliver final technical advice on the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act KPIs to the European Commission

Q1 2027

- Target date for the European Commission to complete its review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act based on ESAs’ advice

Compliance Impact

In the short term, non‑participation in the consultation does not create direct non‑compliance risk but may leave firms exposed to a revised framework that does not reflect their operational realities. In the medium term (Q3 2027 onward), failure to implement the revised Taxonomy KPIs and disclosure rules will create material regulatory, supervisory, and reputational risk, given the central role of Taxonomy data in EU sustainable finance and investor disclosures.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Deadline: 12 August 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankInsurance

🇮🇪 CBI Speech

July 6th 2026

Launch of a €2 Commemorative Circulating Coin to mark Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf

Good morning everyone. I am delighted to be joined this morning by the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance for the launch of a commemorative circulating coin to mark Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The coin will circulate across the euro area, reflecting our place at the heart of Europe and our commitment to the European project. I am also delighted to welcome guests from the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs who have been working on preparat...

Sectors:

Topics:

Bank

🇮🇪 CBI News

July 6th 2026

Central Bank launches €2 commemorative coin to mark Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union

Central Bank of Ireland has today (Monday 6 July) launched a new €2 commemorative coin to mark the beginning of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The coin was officially launched by Governor Gabriel Makhlouf and Tánaiste and Minister for Finance Simon Harris at a ceremony at the Central Bank today. The Central Bank will mint 500,000 of the special €2 coin and it will be issued into general circulation from tomorrow (Tuesday 7 July). People all over Ireland, and indeed...

Sectors:

Topics:

Bank

🇮🇪 CBI Speech

July 3rd 2026

Understanding your lane, managing turning points - Speech by Governor Gabriel Makhlouf - Les Rencontres Économiques d’Aix-en-Provence

In the summer of 2012, with bond markets pricing in a chance of a euro breakup, Mario Draghi pledged to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the currency union. It worked: spreads fell, though the programme behind the pledge, Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT), was never used. Despite having no formal relationship with national fiscal authorities, the central bank stepped in because markets had doubts about some governments’ solvency, and this threatened the monetary union’s existence. We are...

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇯🇵 JFSA News

July 3rd 2026

Publication,Publication of the "Initiatives and Challenges in Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financial Crime (July 2026)"

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 3rd 2026

Active account reporting under Article 7b of EMIR

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 3rd 2026

ASX ordered to pay $20.5 million penalty for misleading conduct relating to CHESS replacement project

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇮🇪 CBI News

July 3rd 2026

Issue 11 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

All Firms

Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇨🇦 OSFI News

July 3rd 2026

The Upper Tribunal has made an order suspending parts of the scheme. We set out what the partial suspension means for firms and consumers. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed it will hear the legal challenges to our motor finance scheme on 14 to 18 December 2026 or 16 to 26 February 2027. The final dates depend on whether any of those involved in the case apply for further expert opinion or disclosure of information, and whether any such application is successful.The Tribunal has also made an or...

AI Analysis

The Upper Tribunal has ordered a **partial suspension** of the FCA’s motor finance consumer redress scheme rules, primarily pausing redress calculation, payment and compensation communications while legal challenges are heard. Compliance teams at motor finance lenders and brokers must now operate under a split regime: preparatory and data‑gathering obligations under PS26/3 remain in force, but scheme‑timetable obligations on paying and notifying compensation are paused until the Tribunal process concludes.

What Changed

- Parts of the FCA motor finance consumer redress scheme under PS26/3 are formally suspended by order of the Upper Tribunal, on terms agreed between the FCA and four challengers (Consumer...
During the suspension, firms are not required to calculate redress, pay compensation, or send communications about compensation owed under the scheme according to the original timetable.
All non‑suspended rules remain fully applicable, including duties to identify in‑scope complaints and agreements, gather commission and disclosure data (including from brokers), and maintain records.
Lenders must continue to identify relevant complaints and agreements falling within scheme scope (motor finance agreements between 2007 and 2024 with potentially unfair commission arrangements).
Firms must continue to gather data on commission arrangements and disclosure practices, including obtaining information from brokers and confirming where such information is not held.

Suggested Considerations

Identify and maintain a complete inventory of motor finance complaints and agreements that fall within the scheme scope (regulated motor finance with relevant commission arrangements between April 2007 and 2024).
Continue to gather, centralise and validate data on commission structures, commission levels, and disclosure practices for all in‑scope agreements, including by issuing targeted information requests to brokers and dealers.
Implement internal workflows to ensure brokers respond to lenders’ information requests within one month, or formally confirm where requested documents or data are not held.
Review and classify complaints to determine which consumers are not owed compensation under the scheme, including cases outside scope and those lacking discretionary, high or tied commission arrangements, and prepare appropriate communications.
Assess complaints for time‑bar issues and apply the scheme’s limitation and out‑of‑time principles consistently, documenting rationale for any reliance on time‑bar to decline redress.

Key Dates

18 November 2025

– Consultation on the proposed motor finance redress scheme closes (CP25/27), feeding into the final PS26/3 rules

5 December 2025 DEADLINE

– Firms must start sending final responses to any motor leasing complaint in line with normal complaint‑handling rules (outside the scheme‑specific pause)

1 May 2026

– FCA confirms its motor finance compensation scheme has been legally challenged, triggering the Upper Tribunal process

31 May 2026

– FCA lifts the general pause on handling certain motor finance complaints, returning many complaints to standard DISP timeframes, alongside the emerging scheme

30 June 2026

– Original end of the implementation period for loans taken out from 1 April 2014 under PS26/3 (now effectively paused for redress calculation/payment/communications)

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the remaining live scheme rules and complaint‑handling requirements exposes firms to supervisory intervention, possible enforcement action and heightened FOS risk, even during the suspension. Failures in data gathering, record‑keeping or timely communications to non‑compensated complainants will also materially increase operational, litigation and reputational risk once the Tribunal clarifies the scheme’s future.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerFintech

🇬🇧 FCA News

July 2nd 2026

Financial regulator to simplify investment disclosure regime

The FCA is proposing to simplify how platforms, advisers and wealth managers communicate the costs of investing while reminding firms to communicate with consumers about investing in plain English. The move will bring all investment cost disclosures into line with previous investment product disclosure reforms and create a more consistent framework for firms to give customers clearer, more useful information.The proposals will allow firms to innovate, test and compete to inform and engage ret...

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 2nd 2026

CSSF Newsletter No 305 – June 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇦🇺 ASIC News

July 2nd 2026

ASIC issues DDO stop orders against Stratfund’s Australian Fixed Income Fund

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement high

July 2nd 2026

Moody’s Germany fined EUR 2,145,000 for misreporting to ESMA

Moody’s Germany fined EUR 2,145,000 for misreporting to ESMA 02 July 2026 Press Releases Securities Financing Transactions Supervision Trade Repositories The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has fined Moody’s Deutschland GmbH (Moody’s Germany) a total of EUR 2,145,000, for committing four breaches of the Credit Rating Agencies Regulation (CRA Regulation), and issued a public notice. Verena Ross, ESMA’s Chair said: "Moody’s ...

AI Analysis

ESMA has fined Moody’s Deutschland GmbH EUR 2,145,000 for four negligent breaches of the EU Credit Rating Agencies Regulation (CRA Regulation), all relating to incomplete, inaccurate and outdated regulatory data reported to ESMA and published on ESMA’s central platforms. This enforcement action underscores that ESMA now treats **data quality in regulatory reporting by credit rating agencies (CRAs)** as a core supervisory priority, with failures in reporting frameworks, policies, procedures and internal controls attracting significant financial penalties and public censure.

What Changed

- ESMA has clarified, through enforcement, that CRAs must ensure complete, accurate and up‑to‑date data is reported to ESMA across all relevant CRA reporting channels (including the European Rating...
ESMA has reinforced that errors limited to regulatory reporting data (and not directly affecting published ratings) can still constitute material breaches of the CRA Regulation, demonstrating that...
ESMA has indicated that group reporting arrangements (where one CRA entity reports on behalf of others in the group) must have clear documentation of responsibilities, validation processes, and...
ESMA has emphasized that regulatory reporting frameworks must include robust policies, procedures and internal control mechanisms, and that deficiencies in these frameworks constitute distinct...
ESMA has signalled that negligence, rather than intentional misconduct, is sufficient to trigger significant fines under the CRA Regulation, and that both aggravating and mitigating factors will be...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct a comprehensive review of all ESMA‑related reporting processes to ensure that data submitted to ESMA (including rating information, historical performance data, rating changes, and other CRA regulatory reports) is complete, accurate, and kept up‑to‑date at all times.
Map and document all responsibilities for ESMA reporting within the CRA group, ensuring that where one entity reports on behalf of others, the allocation of roles, ownership of data, and validation steps is explicitly defined, approved, and regularly reviewed.
Perform a gap analysis of existing regulatory reporting policies, procedures, and internal control mechanisms against CRA Regulation requirements and ESMA supervisory expectations, and update documentation to remove ambiguities and outdated provisions.
Implement or strengthen data validation and reconciliation controls over submissions to the European Rating Platform and ESMA’s central repositories, including automated checks for missing ratings, non‑withdrawn ratings, incorrect rating actions, and inconsistencies in historical performance data.
Establish a formal governance process for changes to regulatory reporting frameworks, ensuring regular review, independent challenge by compliance or risk functions, and clear escalation routes for identified data quality issues or control failures.

Key Dates

Topics:

All Firms

🇦🇪 DFSA News

July 2nd 2026

On 23 June 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed administrative fines totalling €620,000 on VARTA AG. The fines were imposed because the company had contravened obligations under the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG).

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed administrative fines totalling €620,000 on VARTA AG for two core breaches: failure to disclose inside information without undue delay under Article 17(1) MAR, and failure to publish its 2024 half‑yearly financial report and related announcement within the statutory WpHG deadlines. This enforcement is part of a visible tightening of BaFin’s stance on disclosure and market‑abuse obligations and should prompt German‑listed issuers to reassess ad‑hoc disclosure and financial reporting controls, escalation procedures and board oversight.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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)

Survey on the amount of covered deposits held on 30 June 2026

AI Analysis

CSSF-CPDI 26/51 announces the **regular CPDI/Fonds de garantie des dépôts Luxembourg (FGDL) survey of covered deposits as at 30 June 2026**, to be completed by Luxembourg FGDL member institutions. This quarterly data collection feeds directly into the risk-based, ex‑ante contribution methodology under the deposit guarantee framework and is operationally important for prudential planning, reporting controls, and funding of the FGDL.

What Changed

- CSSF launches a new covered deposits data survey with reference date 30 June 2026, continuing the established quarterly reporting cycle used for FGDL funding and risk-based contribution...
Credit institutions incorporated under Luxembourg law, POST Luxembourg (for postal financial services), and Luxembourg branches of credit institutions from third countries must report the stock of...
The survey must be submitted via the CSSF reporting channels (CSSF eDesk platform or other specified electronic means), using the data templates and technical specifications communicated by the CPDI,...
Institutions that are members of the FGDL must ensure alignment between the survey data and the definition of “covered deposits” under the Law of 18 December 2015 on the failure of credit...
The circular reaffirms that data reported for the survey feed into the risk‑based ex‑ante contribution mechanism set out in CPDI circulars on FGDL contributions (e.g.

Suggested Considerations

Apply the EUR 100,000 coverage cap per depositor for the survey and ensure that non‑eligible deposits (such as certain financial sector deposits or specific categories excluded under the 2015 Law) are correctly filtered out of the covered deposits figures.
Reconcile the 30 June 2026 covered deposits data with internal finance, risk, and regulatory reporting systems to ensure consistency with other prudential data and FGDL contribution calculations.
Arrange for the survey report to be reviewed and formally approved by the institution’s governing body or the designated senior manager responsible for deposit guarantee scheme reporting, documenting the approval and any key assumptions or methodological choices.
Submit the completed 30 June 2026 covered deposits survey through the CSSF eDesk platform or other specified reporting channel within the deadline set by CSSF-CPDI 26/51 and any accompanying CPDI instructions.
Retain detailed working papers, data extracts, and methodology documentation supporting the 30 June 2026 survey in order to evidence compliance to CSSF, facilitate internal audit review, and support future FGDL ex‑ante contribution calculations.

Key Dates

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

🇳🇱 AFM News

June 30th 2026

Vrijwillige voortzetting en compensatie: zorg voor adequate keuzebegeleiding

Vrijwillige voortzetting van de pensioenregeling kan het mislopen van compensatie voorkomen. Stel je deelnemers in staat om hierover een passende keuze te maken. Deelnemers moeten weten dat deze keuze bestaat en wat de voorwaarden zijn.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Insurance

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance medium

June 30th 2026

Statistical Notice 2026/06 - Form PL - updates to definitions

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

The Bank of England has announced changes to the **Form PL (Profit and Loss) definitions**, principally clarifying the treatment of tax line item PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600 to align more closely with ONS UK National Accounts requirements. This matters for compliance and regulatory reporting teams because it affects how income, expenditure and tax on production are classified and reported from Q1 2027, with downstream impacts on UK National Accounts, Balance of Payments statistics and firms’ regulatory reporting controls.

What Changed

- The Bank of England will update the Form PL definitions to improve consistency and alignment with the ONS UK National Accounts requirements, specifically for income and expenditure reporting.
The definition and reporting guidance for tax (PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600) are being revised to clarify the treatment of items classified as taxes on production and related charges.
The updated definitions will apply to all Form PL line items, with particular emphasis on ensuring more precise classification of tax-related items within profit and loss reporting.
The Bank of England does not anticipate major changes in reported figures but expects improved clarity and consistency in how firms map internal accounting data to Form PL categories.
The updated definitions will replace the current Form PL guidance and become the operative standard for all reporting institutions from the Q1 2027 reporting period.

Suggested Considerations

Review the updated Form PL definitions in full once they are published on 31 July 2026 to understand all changes to income, expenditure and tax classification.
Map the revised Form PL tax definition (PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600) to internal chart of accounts and tax reporting structures, ensuring correct identification of taxes on production and related charges.
Update internal regulatory reporting systems, data transformation rules and validation checks to reflect the new Form PL definitions ahead of the Q1 2027 reporting period.
Revise internal reporting policies, procedures and documentation for Form PL to incorporate the updated tax treatment and any other definitional changes.
Train finance, regulatory reporting and data teams on the revised Form PL guidance, with particular focus on the redefined tax items and their distinction from other tax and fee categories.

Key Dates

31 July 2026

- Updated Form PL definitions are scheduled to be published by the Bank of England

Q1 2027

- First reference period for which the updated Form PL definitions are effective

May 2027 DEADLINE

- Submission deadline for Q1 2027 Form PL reporting using the revised definitions and tax treatment

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance with the updated Form PL definitions from Q1 2027 would constitute misreporting to the Bank of England, potentially triggering supervisory scrutiny, data quality queries and remediation requirements. Persistent or material misclassification of tax and income items could affect the integrity of UK macroeconomic statistics and lead to heightened regulatory attention on a firm’s reporting controls.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

BankBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Insurance & Pensions

🇯🇵 JFSA News

June 29th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.693 June 29, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing ESG

All Firms

🇪🇺 ECB Enforcement high

June 29th 2026

ECB sanctions BIL for breaching ECB decision on internal models

No description available.

AI Analysis

The ECB has imposed a €3.255 million administrative penalty on Banque Internationale à Luxembourg (BIL) for intentionally failing, over three quarters, to apply its approved internal models when calculating expected loss for retail and corporate defaulted exposures, leading to overstated capital and capital ratios. This case is a clear supervisory signal to Significant Institutions and Less Significant Institutions using IRB/internal models that deviations from approved model usage, especially around expected loss and IRB shortfall, will be treated as severe breaches with material sanctions exposure.

What Changed

- The ECB has reaffirmed that institutions using internal ratings-based (IRB) approaches must apply their approved internal models consistently for expected loss calculation on defaulted retail and...
The ECB has underscored that the IRB shortfall (difference between expected loss and accounting provisions) must be correctly calculated and deducted from regulatory capital whenever expected loss...
The ECB has classified intentional failure to apply approved internal models to expected loss calculations as a “severe” breach under its Guide to the method of setting administrative pecuniary...
The enforcement action confirms the ECB’s readiness to use its sanctioning powers under Article 18 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 against internal-model users that misreport capital due to...
The case highlights that miscalculation of expected loss and IRB shortfall over multiple reporting periods, even without an explicit capital ratio breach of minima, can be sanctioned where capital...

Suggested Considerations

Review and confirm that all regulatory capital calculations, including expected loss and IRB shortfall for defaulted exposures, consistently use the approved internal models as authorised by the ECB or national competent authority.
Map and reconcile the internal-model implementation across risk systems, finance, and regulatory reporting to ensure that there are no manual overrides, alternative methods, or parallel calculations that deviate from the approved model specifications.
Strengthen model risk governance by ensuring that any proposed changes to expected loss methodologies, including for defaulted retail and corporate portfolios, are formally approved by the competent authority before being used in regulatory capital reporting.
Implement robust controls and periodic testing within Finance, Risk, and Regulatory Reporting functions to detect and prevent misapplication or non-application of approved internal models, with clear escalation procedures for identified discrepancies.
Ensure that the calculation of IRB shortfall (difference between expected loss and accounting provisions) is independently validated and appropriately deducted from CET1 capital in accordance with CRR and ECB internal models guidance.

Key Dates

15 October 2013

- Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 enters into force, granting the ECB sanctioning powers for prudential supervision of credit institutions (contextual basis for this enforcement)

Q4 2023

- Start of the period during which BIL failed to apply its approved internal models to expected loss calculation for defaulted retail and corporate exposures, leading to overstated capital

Q1 2024

- Second consecutive quarter in which incorrect expected loss and IRB shortfall calculations continued to affect reported capital and capital ratios

Q2 2024

- Third consecutive quarter of miscalculation; end of the period identified by the ECB as affected by the breach

29 June 2026

- The ECB publishes its decision imposing an administrative penalty of €3.255 million on BIL for the severe breach of its decision on internal models

Compliance Impact

This enforcement action indicates high supervisory sensitivity to internal model governance and capital reporting, with severe classification and multi-million euro penalties where intentional non-use of approved models leads to overstated capital. Non-compliance can result in significant administrative fines, reputational damage, supervisory remediation measures, and potential legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ECB source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Bank

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 FCA Enforcement high

June 29th 2026

Refining the Consumer Duty to give greater confidence to wholesale firms

When the FCA introduced the Consumer Duty, we set out to do something simple but transformative: ensure financial services work better for consumers. It was, by design, ambitious. And it is working. For example, most investment platforms have improved how they treat interest on clients’ cash and public confidence in banks has grown since the Duty was introduced. Wherever possible, it is also helping us to avoid prescriptive new rules.The Duty’s foundations are simple harmonising concepts that...

AI Analysis

The FCA has announced a consultation to *refine the Consumer Duty* so that wholesale and largely business‑to‑business activities sit more clearly outside scope, while keeping the regime focused on retail consumer outcomes. This matters for compliance teams because it will reshape how the Duty applies to activities such as market making, custody, cross‑border business and multi‑party distribution chains, and will allow wholesale‑focused firms to recalibrate their frameworks, governance and monitoring obligations.

What Changed

- The FCA is consulting on clearer scope boundaries for the Consumer Duty to confirm that wholesale, business‑to‑business activities that do not shape retail consumer outcomes should normally be out...
The FCA will provide case studies and examples of “grey areas” to illustrate when activities are, and are not, caught by the Duty, particularly for early‑chain and wholesale‑only firms.
The FCA is clarifying accountability in multi‑firm arrangements, confirming that each firm is responsible for its own activities, can rely on other firms to meet their obligations where appropriate,...
The FCA plans to reduce duplication of obligations across distribution chains, including refining how the “look‑through” concept and co‑manufacturing apply where firms do not directly interact with...
The FCA is narrowing the territorial scope of the Consumer Duty so that business conducted for genuinely non‑UK customers will generally be out of scope, aligning with the principle that local...

Suggested Considerations

Map all business lines and activities to identify which are genuinely wholesale, early‑chain or business‑to‑business, and assess where the firm does or does not “shape consumer outcomes” at the end of the chain.
Review existing Consumer Duty scoping decisions for activities such as market making, custody, safeguarding and other wholesale services, and prepare to adjust those decisions in line with FCA case studies and clarified boundaries.
Re‑evaluate cross‑border business conducted for non‑UK clients to determine which products and services may fall outside the Consumer Duty under the proposed narrowed territorial scope, and document the basis for this classification.
Analyse multi‑party distribution chains and co‑manufacturing arrangements to clearly delineate responsibilities, reliance points and escalation mechanisms where other firms are expected to meet their Consumer Duty obligations.
Update product governance and Consumer Duty frameworks to distinguish between “manufacturers” and supporting firms, ensuring manufacturers continue to meet full Duty requirements while supporting firms apply Principle 12 and cross‑cutting rules proportionately.

Key Dates

31 July 2022

- FCA expected to make the original Consumer Duty rules following CP21/13, establishing the baseline regime and Principle 12

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty comes into force for open (non‑closed‑book) products and services, triggering initial implementation across retail distribution chains

First half of 2026

- FCA planned consultation on revisions to the Consumer Duty scope and exemptions, including clearer delineation of business‑to‑business activity, reliance arrangements in distribution chains and removal of non‑UK customers from scope

Late 2026 (TBD)

- FCA to consult on further changes to client classification, sharpening the distinction between retail and professional markets and clarifying the treatment of sophisticated investors under the Consumer Duty

June 2026 (indicative)

- FCA expected to issue a consultation paper on Duty scope, proportionality and application to wholesale‑only and early‑chain firms, including potential changes to definitions and categorisation of manufacturers versus supporting firms

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance will remain serious for activities that truly affect retail consumer outcomes, with potential for enforcement action, redress requirements, supervisory scrutiny and reputational damage. However, for wholesale‑only and non‑UK business, firms that fail to realign their frameworks with the FCA’s refined scope may incur unnecessary compliance cost, competitive disadvantages and mis‑scoped regulatory risk.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

June 29th 2026

Data on supervisory measures and administrative penalties (year 2025)

No description available.

AI Analysis

What Changed

- CSSF has published its 2025 supervisory disclosure covering supervisory measures and administrative penalties taken during the year.
The publication serves as a public register-style disclosure of enforcement outcomes, increasing transparency around CSSF supervision and sanctioning activity.
A related 2025 CSSF administrative sanction shows that AML/CFT non-compliance can result in a reprimand under the amended Luxembourg AML/CFT Law.
The 28 July 2025 sanction confirms that CSSF can act where firms fail to maintain adequate professional AML/CFT obligations and related internal controls.

Suggested Considerations

Review the firm’s AML/CFT control framework against the Luxembourg AML/CFT Law provisions that can trigger CSSF reprimands or sanctions, including governance, monitoring, and escalation controls.
Verify that suspicious activity detection, investigation, and escalation procedures are documented, implemented, and tested for effectiveness.
Reassess whether internal controls are sufficient to demonstrate timely compliance with professional AML/CFT obligations under CSSF supervision.
Update remediation tracking to ensure supervisory findings are closed out promptly and supported by evidence of corrective action.
Brief senior management on the reputational impact of public supervisory disclosures and ensure that recurring weaknesses are escalated to the board.

Key Dates

Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇯🇵 JFSA News

June 26th 2026

Publication,Publication of "FSA Analytical Notes (2026.6) vol.2: Analysis of Margin Dynamics in OTC Derivatives Market during Periods of High Volatility" in Japanese

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

🇺🇸 SEC News

June 26th 2026

SEC, CFTC Seek Public Comment on the Harmonization of Portfolio Margining Frameworks

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued a joint request for public comment on potential approaches to further harmonize regulatory frameworks applicable to portfolio margining across securities,…

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund

🇬🇧 FCA News

June 26th 2026

FCA consults on targeted changes to listing rules for closed-ended investment funds

The FCA has published a consultation paper on proposed changes to its UK Listing Rules for closed‑ended investment funds, focused on the management of conflicts of interest. Closed‑ended investment funds have a distinct structure, operating as both listed companies and investment vehicles. Shareholders appoint a board, which in turn appoints and oversees the investment manager responsible for delivering returns. Shareholder rights are central to this model, enabling investors to hold boards t...

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Crypto & Digital Assets

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation medium

June 26th 2026

Public consultation by FATF by 21 August 2026 on guidance to increase payment transparency - “travel rule”

No description available.

AI Analysis

FATF has launched a public consultation, flagged by the CSSF, on new **guidance for implementing the revised FATF Recommendation 16 (“travel rule”)**, with the objective of significantly increasing payment transparency by 2030. This consultation will shape how jurisdictions and supervisors (including Luxembourg/CSSF) expect payment and virtual asset flows to carry and use originator/beneficiary data, so compliance teams should treat this as an early signal of future mandatory AML/CTF requirements for both fiat and virtual asset transfers.

What Changed

*(Based on the CSSF notice plus the 2025 FATF revisions to Recommendation 16 and existing travel‑rule standards; details may be further refined by the new guidance now under consultation.)*
FATF is issuing implementation guidance for the updated Recommendation 16, which already increased obligations regarding payment transparency, including more granular beneficiary data and expanded...
Cross‑border payments and value transfers above 1,000 USD/EUR are expected to include additional mandatory beneficiary information, such as beneficiary name, account or unique reference, and at least...
Beneficiary institutions are given enhanced responsibilities to use travel‑rule information (not just receive it) for transaction monitoring, including detecting misdirected payments and indicators...
The revised travel rule continues to apply to both traditional wire transfers and value transfers involving virtual assets, reinforcing that Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) must collect,...

Suggested Considerations

Map and document all existing and planned cross‑border payment and value‑transfer flows (including virtual asset transfers) to identify where FATF Recommendation 16 and travel‑rule obligations currently apply or will apply by 2030.
Review the June 2025 FATF modifications to Recommendation 16 and the current consultation materials, and perform a gap analysis against your existing AML/CTF, KYC and payments data standards, including thresholds, data fields, and monitoring use‑cases.
Establish an internal project for travel‑rule implementation and enhancement that spans AML, operations, technology, legal and data‑protection teams, with explicit ownership and governance.
Strengthen beneficiary‑side transaction‑monitoring rules to use incoming travel‑rule data for sanctions, fraud and AML detection, including controls to identify misdirected or unusual payments based on name, location, and other attributes.
Review and, where necessary, update customer due diligence and KYC procedures to ensure the availability and verification of data fields that will be required to travel with transactions (for example, address, town and country, identification numbers, date of birth).

Key Dates

18 June 2025

- FATF adopts modifications to Recommendation 16 to enhance payment transparency, including strengthened travel‑rule standards

24 June 2026

- FATF launches public consultation on guidance for the implementation of the updated Recommendation 16

21 August 2026 DEADLINE

- FATF public consultation period closes; this is the deadline for private‑sector contributions highlighted by the CSSF

End 2030

- FATF’s revised Recommendation 16 framework is expected to be fully effective, with jurisdictions having implemented the standard into national law or regulation by this date

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the revised travel‑rule expectations will materially increase the risk of supervisory criticism, enforcement action, and restrictions on cross‑border business, especially in higher‑risk client segments and payment corridors. Failure to implement adequate data‑collection and monitoring capabilities may also compromise sanctions and AML controls, leading to heightened legal, financial and reputational exposure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Deadline: 21 August 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankPayment ProviderCrypto Exchange

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

June 26th 2026

List of supervised entities - Cut-off date 1 May 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇪🇺 ECB News high

June 26th 2026

ECB Guide on assessment methodology (EGAM)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇪🇺 ECB News

June 25th 2026

ECB concludes asset quality reviews of KfW Beteiligungsholding GmbH and Promontoria 19 Coöperatie U.A.

No description available.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions

🇺🇸 CFTC Consultation medium

June 25th 2026

CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Data Reporting Requirements for Certain Event Contracts

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CFTC has proposed amendments to Parts 15, 16, and 17 to establish a new reporting regime for certain covered event contracts, including a new **§16.03 “Covered Event Contracts”** provision. If adopted, the rule would require relevant market participants to report these contracts under the Parts 15 through 18 framework rather than under selected reporting provisions in Parts 38, 39, 43, and 45, making this a material compliance redesign for firms active in event contracts.

What Changed

- The CFTC proposes an alternate reporting framework for certain fully collateralized event contracts, replacing reliance on certain reporting provisions in Parts 38, 39, 43, and 45 with reporting...
The proposal would amend Part 15, Part 16, and Part 17 of the CFTC’s regulations.
The proposal would add a new §16.03 titled “Covered Event Contracts” to Part 16.
The proposal would require reporting pursuant to §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 for covered event contracts.
The proposal would apply to reporting by certain reporting markets, futures commission merchants, clearing members, and foreign brokers.

Suggested Considerations

Firms that list, clear, intermediate, or report covered event contracts should inventory all event-contract products and map each product to the current reporting regime and the proposed Parts 15 through 18 framework.
Compliance teams should identify all reporting fields, systems, and workflows currently relying on Parts 38, 39, 43, or 45 for event-contract reporting and assess whether those processes would need redesign.
FCMs, clearing members, and foreign brokers should review their data governance and source-of-truth controls to ensure they can produce the reporting elements required under §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 if the proposal is adopted.
Firms should track the public-comment process and prepare comments if the proposed framework creates operational gaps, duplicated reporting, or ambiguities in product scope.
Market participants should review reliance on existing no-action letters and prepare contingency plans for a transition from interim relief to a codified rule.

Key Dates

2017

The Bank of England and PRA are both Prescribed Persons as defined by Parliament under The Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014.

AI Analysis

The Bank of England and PRA, as Prescribed Persons under the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014, have published their whistleblowing annual report for the period 1 April 2025 – 31 March 2026, in line with the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017. The report confirms continued operationalisation of whistleblowing channels, the assessment of disclosures under PIDA, and the systematic sharing of all disclosures (protected and non‑protected) with supervisors, which materially elevates supervisory and enforcement risk for PRA‑regulated firms.

What Changed

- Prescribed Persons reporting obligations under the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017 continue to apply, requiring the Bank and PRA to publish, within six...
For the 2025/26 period, the Bank and PRA report that 271 disclosures were received and assessed against the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and their own statutory requirements to determine...
Of the 271 disclosures, 257 were reasonably believed to be protected disclosures within Part IVA of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and within the Bank’s and PRA’s remit as Prescribed...
Fourteen disclosures were assessed as not protected, including disclosures about firms not regulated by the Bank or PRA, issues outside the Bank’s or PRA’s regulatory remit, and individuals who do...
Regardless of statutory protection status, the Bank and PRA’s whistleblowing team provided supervisory colleagues with all disclosures (protected and non‑protected) for consideration or for...

Suggested Considerations

Establish clear internal processes for responding when the PRA or Bank contacts the firm following a whistleblowing disclosure, including immediate escalation to Compliance, Legal, and relevant Senior Managers, coordinated responses, and robust documentation of remedial actions.

Key Dates

01 April 2025

- Start of the reporting period for the Bank of England and PRA’s 2025/26 Prescribed Persons whistleblowing report

31 March 2026

- End of the reporting period for the 2025/26 whistleblowing disclosures referenced in the Bank and PRA report

By 30 September 2026 (within six months of 31 March 2026) DEADLINE

- Latest date by which the Bank and PRA are required under the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017 to publish the written annual report on disclosures for the 2025/26 period

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with robust whistleblowing arrangements and failure to address issues raised by whistleblowers can significantly increase prudential and conduct risk, trigger intensified supervisory scrutiny, and lead to enforcement action, including fines, business restrictions, and personal consequences for senior management under SMCR. The fact that all whistleblowing disclosures, including non‑protected ones, are provided to PRA supervisors amplifies the likelihood that unresolved internal issues will surface in firm‑specific supervisory reviews and risk assessments.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankInsuranceAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇬🇧 PRA Enforcement medium

June 25th 2026

Enforcement Decision Making Committee Report 2025/26

This Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC) annual report covers the period of 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026.

AI Analysis

The PRA’s EDMC annual report confirms that contested enforcement decisions remain structurally separated from investigation teams and executive decision-makers, with the EDMC acting as the independent final administrative decision-maker before any Upper Tribunal referral. For compliance teams, the key message is not a new rule change, but a reminder that PRA enforcement cases are handled through a formal, disclosure-heavy process with written and oral representations and an independent review of settled cases.

What Changed

- The EDMC completed its annual reporting cycle for the period 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026, confirming the continued operation of the PRA’s contested-case decision framework.
The report confirms that the EDMC continues to provide functional separation between investigation/enforcement staff and decision-makers in PRA contested enforcement cases.
The report confirms that the EDMC’s role covers enforcement cases under the Bank’s statutory regimes for prudential regulation, financial market infrastructure, resolution, securitisation, wholesale...
The EDMC confirms that contested enforcement decisions are made independently, with disclosure of relevant material and the opportunity for both written and oral representations.
The EDMC confirms that its decision is the final stage of administrative decision-making in contested PRA enforcement cases, after which the subject may refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.

Suggested Considerations

Review your firm’s PRA enforcement response plan to ensure it supports rapid collection, review, and production of material that may be disclosed in a contested case.
Ensure legal and compliance teams are prepared to make both written and oral representations to the EDMC if the firm becomes subject to a contested enforcement matter.
Confirm that internal governance provides for independent escalation and board-level oversight when a PRA investigation enters the decision stage.
Maintain an updated settlement strategy for PRA matters, including documented positions on fairness, scope of admissions, and mitigation, because the EDMC may review settlement processes retrospectively.
Map exposure across all PRA enforcement regimes relevant to the business, including prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties, and S&NI banknote matters.

Key Dates

01 March 2025

- Start of the reporting period covered by the EDMC annual report

Summer 2026 DEADLINE

- Remaining EDMC members, including the incoming Chair and Deputy Chair, are due to be appointed

28 February 2026

- End of the reporting period covered by the EDMC annual report

28 February 2026

- As of this date, the PRA enforcement team was overseeing five cases, including investigations into five firms and five individuals

June 2026

- The EDMC annual report for 2025/26 was published

Compliance Impact

The report reinforces that PRA enforcement remains procedurally rigorous and independent, so weaknesses in document preservation, internal escalation, or representation strategy can materially worsen outcomes in contested cases. While no new enforcement rule is introduced here, firms should treat the report as evidence that the PRA’s decision-making architecture is stable, formal, and capable of escalating to tribunal litigation if matters are not resolved early.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankAll FirmsInsurance

🇪🇺 ECB News high

June 25th 2026

Letter from Claudia Buch, Chair of the Supervisory Board, to Mr Fabio de Masi, MEP, on banking supervision

No description available.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Investment Management

🇬🇧 BoE Enforcement medium

June 25th 2026

A sea change in regulatory investigations and enforcement − speech by David Chaplin

Given at the 5th Conference on Financial Law and Regulation, University of Leeds School of Law, 24 June 2026

AI Analysis

David Chaplin says the PRA is seeing a “sea change” in enforcement cases because firms and individuals are now engaging earlier, identifying breaches proactively, and remediating sooner. This matters because the PRA is formalising a more efficient investigative model that rewards early factual cooperation and early admissions, which can materially affect settlement outcomes and overall enforcement exposure.

What Changed

- The PRA is now explicitly encouraging earlier engagement by investigation subjects, including proactive identification, acknowledgement, and remediation of breaches.
The familiar enforcement pattern is changing from a late-stage admission model toward a front-loaded investigative model in which firms provide information earlier in the process.
The PRA’s enforcement approach now places greater emphasis on written factual accounts and supporting materials during the initial investigative stage.
Firms that participate early and make early admissions may obtain enhanced settlement discounts, while non-participants remain on a lower discount path.
The Bank says this is not a new policy launch but an explanation of how the existing approach is operating in practice across live cases.

Suggested Considerations

Review current investigation-response procedures to ensure the firm can produce a factually complete written account and supporting evidence at short notice.
Build escalation protocols that trigger early internal fact-finding when a potential prudential breach is identified.
Train relevant staff to distinguish between cooperation, factual admissions, and without-prejudice settlement positions so that engagement does not inadvertently prejudice legal strategy.
Reassess whether current incident-management playbooks are aligned with the PRA’s expectation of early candour and remediation.
Ensure legal, compliance, and business stakeholders can rapidly agree on breach acknowledgment, remediation steps, and document preservation.

Key Dates

May 2023

- The PRA published Consultation Paper CP9/23, which proposed changes later reflected in the updated enforcement approach

30 January 2024

- The Bank of England unveiled changes to the PRA’s enforcement approach, including the Early Account Scheme and the Enhanced Settlement Discount

24 June 2026

- David Chaplin delivered the speech at the 5th Conference on Financial Law and Regulation at the University of Leeds School of Law

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance with the PRA’s expectations can increase the likelihood of a more intrusive investigation, weaker settlement leverage, and exposure to formal sanctions, including censures, financial penalties, suspensions, and individual prohibitions. The speech indicates that firms that fail to engage early may lose access to the practical benefits now emerging in enforcement handling.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankInsuranceAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Payments & E-Money

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

June 25th 2026

Circular CSSF 26/914

Identification of obliged entities eligible for direct supervision by AMLA

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 26/914 identifies which Luxembourg obliged entities fall within the perimeter for **potential direct supervision by the future EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA)**, as part of the new EU-level AML/CFT supervisory architecture. This matters for compliance teams because in‑scope entities will face an additional EU supervisory layer, more intrusive AML/CFT oversight, and will need to prepare for alignment with AMLA’s methodologies, data requirements, and enforcement practices.

What Changed

- The CSSF formally identifies Luxembourg “obliged entities” under AML/CFT law that are potentially eligible for direct AMLA supervision, clarifying which categories of firms fall into the EU‑level...
The circular operationalises, at CSSF level, the EU allocation mechanism for direct supervision, building on Regulation (EU) 2024/… establishing AMLA and the forthcoming directly applicable AML...
The CSSF establishes a process for providing information to AMLA on Luxembourg obliged entities (e.g. size, cross‑border activities, risk profile) to support AMLA’s periodic selection and review of...
The circular clarifies that CSSF‑supervised entities identified as “eligible” remain under CSSF supervision unless and until AMLA formally designates them for direct supervision, at which point AMLA...
The circular anticipates enhanced data and reporting requirements for entities assessed as eligible for AMLA direct supervision, including more granular information on cross‑border business,...

Suggested Considerations

Determine whether your firm is likely to fall within the “eligible for AMLA direct supervision” perimeter by assessing your cross‑border footprint, ML/TF risk profile, group structure, and relative size against AMLA’s high‑risk and cross‑border criteria.
Review and update the firm‑wide AML/CFT risk assessment to ensure it is robust, data‑driven, and aligned with an EU‑level supervisory perspective, including explicit consideration of cross‑border risks, complex group structures, and high‑risk products.
Strengthen AML/CFT governance and oversight, including Board and senior management reporting, to demonstrate clear ownership of ML/TF risk, documented risk appetite, and effective challenge consistent with what AMLA expects from directly supervised entities.
Review and, where necessary, enhance customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, screening and suspicious activity reporting frameworks to withstand more intrusive and harmonised EU‑level scrutiny.
Map and document cross‑border business lines and passporting activities (branches, agents, tied intermediaries, distributors) to ensure you can provide complete and up‑to‑date information to the CSSF and AMLA on request.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The SFC has concluded its consultation and confirmed it will **implement an investor identification regime for Hong Kong’s exchange‑traded derivatives market (HKIDR‑DM)**, mirroring the existing HKIDR-S regime for the securities market. The regime will require derivatives brokers and proprietary traders to submit client identity data for on‑exchange futures and options orders into a central repository from **Q2 2028**, creating significant new data, systems, and privacy compliance obligations.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

AI Analysis

CSSF published a new **Annex to Circular CSSF 22/822** on **22 June 2026**, updating the Luxembourg regulator’s reference list of FATF **high-risk jurisdictions** and **jurisdictions under increased monitoring**. For compliance teams, this matters because AML/CFT country-risk scoring, enhanced due diligence triggers, and sanctions-style controls must be aligned to the current FATF position reflected by CSSF.

What Changed

- CSSF republished the annex to Circular CSSF 22/822 in a Version of 19 June 2026, meaning firms should treat this as the current Luxembourg reference point for FATF jurisdiction screening and...
The annex distinguishes between high-risk jurisdictions subject to enhanced due diligence and, where appropriate, counter-measures, and jurisdictions under increased monitoring that require...
The publication incorporates the FATF’s current statements on jurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT/CPF deficiencies, which is the basis for operational country-risk controls used by...
The related Circular CSSF 22/822 remains the framework document that instructs professionals to use FATF statements when assessing jurisdictional ML/TF/PF risk.

Suggested Considerations

Review your AML/CFT country-risk methodology and update it to reflect the 19 June 2026 FATF/CSSF jurisdiction list.
Re-screen customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, and transactions against the updated high-risk and monitored jurisdiction lists.
Apply enhanced due diligence for relationships and transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions, and escalate where counter-measures may be required.
Reassess risk ratings for customers linked to jurisdictions under increased monitoring and document the rationale for any continued onboarding, retention, or exit decisions.
Update automated screening rules, transaction-monitoring scenarios, and onboarding checklists so they use the current CSSF annex version.

Key Dates

27 October 2022

- Circular CSSF 22/822 was issued, establishing the framework for using FATF statements on high-risk jurisdictions and jurisdictions under increased monitoring

19 June 2026

- The annex was updated to this version date, reflecting the current FATF jurisdiction lists and associated risk posture

22 June 2026

- CSSF published the annex on its website, making the updated reference document operationally relevant for supervised firms

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance can lead to supervisory findings, remediation orders, and possible enforcement action where firms fail to apply risk-sensitive AML controls consistent with CSSF/FATF expectations. The practical impact is highest for onboarding, correspondent-like relationships, cross-border payments, and any business line exposed to higher-risk jurisdictions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerFintech

🇪🇺 ESMA News

June 22nd 2026

ESMA publishes the register of external reviewers under the EuGB Regulation

ESMA publishes the register of external reviewers under the EuGB Regulation 22 June 2026 Supervision The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published the register of firms authorised to act as external reviewers of European Green Bonds. External reviewers play a key role in ensuring that the use of proceeds of European Green Bonds is allocated in line with the EU Taxonomy requirements. They are also vital in boostin...

Sectors:

ESG Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇮🇪 CBI Consultation medium

June 22nd 2026

Central Bank launches consultation on evolving regulation

The Central Bank of Ireland has today launched a public consultation seeking views on its approach to Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and on its approach to consultation with stakeholders. The consultation forms part of the Central Bank’s ongoing work to deliver a more effective and efficient regulatory framework, building on our recent new supervisory approach and roadmap of regulatory initiatives . It reflects the Central Bank’s commitment to ensuring that regulation remains clear, coher...

AI Analysis

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has launched a public consultation (closing 30 September 2026) on its **Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) framework** and on how it consults with stakeholders, as part of its wider programme to make Irish financial regulation more effective, efficient, and proportionate. For compliance teams, this is a key opportunity and a warning: the way the CBI designs, justifies, consults on, and reviews future rules will be formalised and made more evidence‑based, which will directly affect the cost, complexity, and predictability of future regulatory change across all sectors.

What Changed

- The CBI has opened a public consultation on its approach to Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), seeking views on how it should weigh evidence, assess costs and impacts, and structure its analysis...
The consultation also covers the CBI’s approach to stakeholder consultation, including how it engages with industry, civil society, consumer representatives, the public, policymakers, and peer...
The initiative sits within the CBI’s broader “more effective and efficient regulatory framework” programme, which includes a new supervisory approach and a roadmap of regulatory initiatives,...
The CBI aims to make regulation clear, coherent and proportionate, explicitly linking rule‑making to protections for consumers, investors, and financial stability, and to the resilience of the...
The CBI is moving towards a more structured, transparent, and evidence‑based policymaking process, where the rationale for regulatory interventions, the analysis of options, and the assessment of...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct an internal review of your firm’s experience with recent CBI consultations (e.g. Consumer Protection Code, governance, outsourcing, AML, reporting) and document challenges, costs, and data gaps that could be addressed through a more robust RIA and consultation framework.
Prepare and submit a response to the CBI consultation by 30 September 2026, either directly or via relevant industry associations, setting out detailed expectations on how RIA should address compliance costs, operational impacts, proportionality for smaller firms, and implementation lead times.
Update your regulatory affairs or public policy strategy to explicitly incorporate the emerging CBI RIA framework, including criteria for when to engage, escalation thresholds for high‑impact proposals, and internal approval processes for consultation submissions.
For Irish‑authorised groups operating cross‑border, align your approach to CBI RIA engagement with EU‑level impact assessment practices (e.g. European Commission and ESAs) to ensure consistency in messaging and evidence on cumulative regulatory burden and competitiveness.
Monitor subsequent CBI publications (including the forthcoming feedback statement, revised Corporate Governance Codes, and sectoral plans) to identify where the new RIA framework is being applied and to anticipate where the CBI may seek additional data or structured feedback from firms.

Key Dates

10 December 2025

– CBI publishes its roadmap “Regulating & Supervising Well – a more effective and efficient framework”, committing to a public consultation on a new Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Framework in H1 2026 and outlining a multi‑year programme of regulatory and supervisory reforms from H1 2026 to H1 2028

22 June 2026

– CBI launches the public consultation on its approach to RIA and stakeholder consultation, alongside references to its new supervisory approach and roadmap of regulatory initiatives

H1 2026

– Target window identified in the roadmap for the public consultation on the new RIA Framework; this is now operationalised by the consultation launched on 22 June 2026

TBD (post‑30 September 2026)

– CBI will consider all submissions and publish a feedback statement setting out its finalised approach to RIA and consultation, which will then guide the design of future regulatory initiatives

H2 2026

– Roadmap foresees drafting of revised Corporate Governance Codes for consultation, which are likely to be shaped by, and potentially used to pilot, the new RIA framework and consultation approach once finalised

Compliance Impact

In the short term, the consultation does not impose new binding obligations but shapes the procedural framework for all future CBI rule‑making, making early engagement strategically important for managing long‑term compliance cost and regulatory uncertainty. Over the medium term, once the RIA and consultation frameworks are finalised, firms that fail to engage effectively in consultations may find themselves facing more onerous or misaligned requirements with limited scope for later challenge or adjustment.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CBI source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇮🇪 CBI Speech

June 22nd 2026

Better decisions, better regulation, better outcomes

Good regulation matters. It matters for consumers and for investors. It matters for firms and the wider economy, and for resilience and the stability of the financial system. In the Central Bank, regulation is central to how we deliver our safeguarding outcomes: protecting consumers and investors, maintaining financial stability, supporting the safety and soundness of firms, and protecting the integrity of the financial system. As I have said before, good regulation should be forward looking,...

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

June 22nd 2026

Circular CSSF 26/913

Application of the Guidelines of the European Banking Authority on ancillary services undertakings specifying the criteria for the identification of activities referred to in Article 4(1)(18) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (EBA/GL/2026/01)

AI Analysis

What Changed

- The CSSF has formally applied the EBA Guidelines on ancillary services undertakings specified in EBA/GL/2026/01 for identifying activities under Article 4(1)(18) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Firms must assess whether a non-bank activity or group entity qualifies as an ancillary services undertaking under the EBA criteria, rather than relying on internal labels or informal business...
The regulatory perimeter analysis now needs to consider whether relevant activities are performed within a banking group in a way that affects prudential consolidation and supervisory treatment.
Institutions should expect the CSSF to use the EBA framework as the benchmark for determining whether an activity is sufficiently connected to banking support functions to fall within the ancillary...
Compliance evidence will need to show a documented, reproducible assessment of each potentially relevant activity against the EBA identification criteria.

Suggested Considerations

Review all group entities and business lines to identify activities that may fall within the definition of an ancillary services undertaking under Article 4(1)(18) CRR.
Document a formal assessment methodology for classifying activities against the EBA/GL/2026/01 criteria.
Reconfirm the prudential consolidation perimeter and ensure all ancillary service entities are correctly included or excluded, with the reasoning retained for supervisory review.
Update legal entity inventories, regulatory mapping, and governance documents so they align with the CSSF’s adopted EBA framework.
Test whether existing internal reporting, risk management, and control frameworks capture any newly identified ancillary services undertakings.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The CSSF has introduced two **mandatory standardised application forms** for authorisation of UCITS **domestic mergers** under the Luxembourg Law of 17 December 2010 and **outbound cross‑border mergers** where the receiving UCITS is located in another EU Member State under Directive 2009/65/EC. From 19 June 2026, any new UCITS merger authorisation request of these types must use the new forms and be filed by email with the full supporting documentation required by the applicable UCITS merger provisions.

What Changed

- The CSSF has created a standardised “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS domestic merger” specifically for merger authorisation requests where both merging and receiving UCITS are...
The CSSF has created a standardised “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS outbound cross‑border merger” for mergers where the merging UCITS is Luxembourg‑authorised and the receiving UCITS...
Use of the two new forms is mandatory for all new merger authorisation applications submitted to the CSSF from 19 June 2026 onwards; legacy formats (ad‑hoc letters or bespoke templates) may no longer...
Each application form must be “duly completed” and accompanied by all documents required under the applicable UCITS merger regulations, including the common draft terms of merger, updated prospectus...
The CSSF has specified a centralised submission channel for these applications: completed forms and supporting documentation must be sent to amendments.uci@cssf.lu, aligning merger filings with the...

Suggested Considerations

Identify all current and planned UCITS domestic and outbound cross‑border merger projects and determine which will have CSSF authorisation requests submitted on or after 19 June 2026 so that the new forms are used.
Download and review in detail the “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS domestic merger” and “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS outbound cross‑border merger” and map each field of the forms to existing internal data sources and documents.
Update internal UCITS merger procedures and checklists to replace any existing CSSF filing templates with the new standardised forms and to include the requirement that all merger authorisation applications are submitted to amendments.uci@cssf.lu.
Train legal, product, operations and compliance staff involved in UCITS mergers on how to complete the new forms accurately, including coordination of information across the prospectus, KIIDs/KIDs, common draft merger terms, depositary statements and shareholder communications.
Review and, where necessary, update board and governance templates (board minutes, resolutions approving merger terms) to ensure they produce all information that the new forms require to be confirmed or attached.

Key Dates

19 June 2026

- CSSF communiqué published announcing the two new merger authorisation forms for UCITS domestic mergers and UCITS outbound cross‑border mergers

19 June 2026 DEADLINE

- **Start of mandatory use of the new forms** for all **new merger authorisation applications** filed with the CSSF; applications submitted from this date must use the new templates and be sent to amendments.uci@cssf.lu

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance (e.g. using outdated templates or submitting incomplete forms) is likely to result in the CSSF treating the file as inadmissible or incomplete, delaying merger authorisation and potentially requiring postponement of planned merger effective dates. Repeated deficiencies or failure to comply with the standardised process may also raise supervisory concerns about the firm’s governance and regulatory controls around UCITS product actions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager

🇪🇺 ECB News

June 19th 2026

ECB publishes supervisory banking statistics on significant institutions for the first quarter of 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇪🇺 ECB News low

June 19th 2026

Supervisory Banking Statistics for significant institutions - First quarter 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇬🇧 BoE Consultation high

June 19th 2026

PRA sets out adjustments to its market risk internal model approach under Basel 3.1

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has today published a consultation on the internal model approach to market risk (IMA), which represents the final piece of Basel 3.1’s implementation in the UK.

AI Analysis

The PRA has launched a consultation on targeted adjustments to the **Basel 3.1 internal model approach (IMA) for market risk**, confirming that IMA will still go live in the UK on 01 January 2028 while refining key aspects of profit-and-loss attribution (PLA), modellability, mixed IMA/standardised use, and operational requirements. These changes matter for compliance teams because they alter how trading book risks can qualify for IMA capital treatment, affect the transition path from standardised to IMA, and require updates to model governance, documentation, and implementation plans ahead of the Basel 3.1 go‑live dates in 2027 and 2028.

What Changed

- The PRA confirms that the Basel 3.1 internal model approach for market risk (FRTB‑IMA) will be implemented in the UK on 01 January 2028, with no further delay to the already-announced date.
The PRA proposes to extend the monitoring period for the profit and loss attribution (PLA) test from one year to three years before PLA outcomes are used to drive capital consequences for IMA trading...
The PRA proposes a more targeted approach for positions with limited trading data, adjusting the identification of risks that cannot be modelled under IMA so that more positions can be treated as...
The PRA proposes to modify the treatment of positions subject to a mix of IMA and standardised approaches, to avoid scenarios where capital requirements increase mechanically as firms gradually...
The PRA proposes operational simplifications and amendments to the IMA rules to improve proportionality, including simplifications in how firms evidence modellability, run tests, and manage the...

Suggested Considerations

Review the PRA consultation on the Basel 3.1 market risk internal model approach in detail and map each proposed change (PLA monitoring, modellability, mixed‑use treatment, operational simplifications) to current and planned IMA designs and policies.
Update the Basel 3.1 implementation roadmap for market risk to reflect that all non‑IMA Basel 3.1 rules start in January 2027, while IMA goes live on 01 January 2028, ensuring dependencies between standardised and IMA implementations are clearly sequenced.
Reassess the design, calibration, and governance of the profit and loss attribution framework to accommodate a three‑year monitoring period, including data retention, desk‑level analytics, exception management, and documentation of PRA engagement during the monitoring phase.
Perform an inventory of trading book risk factors and positions with limited trading data and assess how the PRA’s more targeted approach to non‑modellable risks will change modellability classifications, capital impacts, and desk‑level model scope.
Analyse current and planned use of mixed IMA and standardised approaches across desks to ensure that migration pathways do not inadvertently increase capital requirements and adjust transition plans, capital forecasts, and management information accordingly.

Key Dates

January 2027

- All Basel 3.1 rules other than the internal model approach for market risk come into force in the UK, including the new market risk standardised approaches and trading book boundary rules

01 January 2028

- The PRA’s adjusted internal model approach for market risk (FRTB‑IMA), as refined through this consultation, comes into effect; IMA capital requirements and associated reporting and testing obligations apply from this date

Compliance Impact

Failure to adapt Basel 3.1 IMA implementation plans to the PRA’s adjusted framework could result in higher than necessary capital requirements, delayed or refused IMA permissions, and potential supervisory findings on model risk management and governance. For firms with significant trading books, misalignment with the new IMA rules will have material prudential, profitability, and strategic implications.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

June 19th 2026

CP9/26 – Basel 3.1: Adjustments to the internal model approach (IMA) for market risk

Consultation paper 9/26

AI Analysis

The PRA has issued CP9/26, a consultation on targeted adjustments to the **Basel 3.1 market risk Internal Model Approach (IMA)** that was finalized in PS1/26. The main compliance significance is that it refines how firms can use market risk models, including capital caps, collective investment undertaking treatment, reporting/disclosure, and other operational clarifications, while preserving the PRA’s objective of robust model standards and closer international consistency.

What Changed

- The PRA is consulting on a targeted set of adjustments to the market risk IMA rules and related policy materials that were finalized in PS1/26.
The proposals include replacing the existing partial caps on IMA capital with a permission-based cap on IMA capital at the full ASA level.
The PRA proposes to adjust the treatment of collective investment undertakings (CIUs) by introducing a 90% de minimis look-through threshold for IMA inclusion.
The PRA proposes to extend the ASA treatment of index-tracking funds to IMA.
The PRA proposes to update reporting and disclosure obligations so they align with the revised IMA framework.

Suggested Considerations

Review the proposed IMA amendments in CP9/26 against current Basel 3.1 implementation plans and identify where trading desk, model, and capital calculations would change.
Assess whether any current or planned IMA portfolios would be affected by the proposed permission-based cap at the full ASA level.
Recalculate the implications of the proposed 90% CIU de minimis look-through threshold for portfolio classification and capital treatment.
Check whether index-tracking fund positions should be re-mapped under the proposed extension of ASA treatment to IMA.
Update reporting and disclosure implementation workstreams to reflect the PRA’s proposed alignment changes.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The FCA concluded its investigation into Drax without taking action after an extensive review of “thousands of pages” and interviews with company personnel, focused on whether Drax’s annual reports and accounts from 2021 to 2023 contained misleading statements or material omissions about biomass sustainability. This matters because it shows the FCA continues to scrutinize **listed-company disclosures** on ESG and sustainability claims, especially where prior regulatory findings or public controversies may indicate potential market disclosure risk.

What Changed

- The FCA has closed its investigation into Drax Group PLC and will take no further action.
The FCA confirmed that it reviewed whether Drax’s 2021, 2022 and 2023 annual reports and accounts contained misleading statements or omitted important information for investors.
The FCA stated that its focus was limited to matters within its remit as a listed-company regulator, not a general review of Drax’s broader operations.
The FCA’s approach confirms that sustainability-related market disclosures can be assessed under listed-company continuing disclosure obligations where they affect investor understanding.
The FCA indicated that it will close cases where evidence does not support proportionate action, even after a substantial investigation.

Suggested Considerations

Review annual report drafting controls to ensure sustainability statements are supported by underlying source data and governance evidence before publication.
Map ESG and environmental claims to the exact disclosure obligations that apply to listed issuers, including continuing disclosure and annual report requirements.
Test whether statements about biomass sourcing, carbon impact, or sustainability performance could be viewed as misleading without full context or qualifying information.
Maintain a defensible audit trail showing how disputed environmental data, third-party evidence, and management judgments were validated before disclosure.
Escalate any controversy involving regulator findings, whistleblower allegations, or media investigations to disclosure committees and legal counsel early in the reporting cycle.

Key Dates

2021

- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts

2022

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs 7 der Verordnung vom 8. Juni 2012 über Massnahmen gegenüber Syrien (SR 946.231.172.7) publiziert.

AI Analysis

The Swiss Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) has amended **Annex 7 of the Ordinance of 8 June 2012 on Measures against Syria (SR 946.231.172.7)**, updating the list of sanctioned persons, entities, and organisations. The associated changes have been implemented in SECO’s SESAM sanctions database and become **legally binding for Swiss financial intermediaries as of 16 June 2026 at 23:00**, triggering immediate screening, asset-freeze, and reporting obligations under Swiss sanctions and AML law.

What Changed

- The WBF has amended Annex 7 of the Ordinance of 8 June 2012 on Measures against Syria (SR 946.231.172.7), changing the list of sanctioned persons, companies, and organisations connected to Syria.
The Swiss sanctions database SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management) has been updated to reflect these changes, and SECO has published the amended list on its website.
The updated measures, including asset-freeze and prohibition obligations, enter into force on 16 June 2026 at 23:00, making the revised Syria list immediately enforceable for Swiss-supervised...
Financial intermediaries are explicitly required to implement the applicable prohibitions, including restrictions on making funds or economic resources available to listed persons, entities, and...
Financial intermediaries must freeze the assets and economic resources of the persons, companies, and organisations newly listed, relisted, or otherwise affected by the Annex 7 amendment.

Suggested Considerations

Perform an immediate update of sanctions screening lists and tools to incorporate the revised Syria Annex 7 entries as reflected in the SESAM database.
Identify all customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, and transactions that match or potentially match the updated Syria sanctions list, including retrospective screening where systems permit.
Freeze without delay all assets and economic resources held or controlled by persons, entities, or organisations that are newly listed or affected by changes under the updated Annex 7.
Block any new or pending transactions that would make funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to persons and entities designated under the updated Syria list.
Report all affected business relationships and frozen assets to SECO in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Syria sanctions ordinance and SECO guidance.

Key Dates

08 June 2012

- Original Ordinance on Measures against Syria (SR 946.231.172.7) entered into force, establishing the sanctions framework and Annex 7

15 June 2026

- WBF amended the list of sanctioned persons, companies, and organisations in Annex 7 of the Syria sanctions ordinance and updated the Swiss SESAM sanctions database; SECO published the updated list on its website

16 June 2026 DEADLINE

- The amended measures, including changes to the Annex 7 Syria sanctions list, enter into force at 23:00, from which time financial intermediaries must fully apply the new listings and obligations

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance exposes firms to FINMA enforcement measures, including coercive administrative actions, reputational damage, and potentially severe regulatory sanctions for failures in sanctions implementation and AML controls. Breaches of Swiss sanctions and AML obligations can also create criminal liability risks for institutions and responsible individuals, particularly where prohibited economic resources are made available or suspicious activity is not reported.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

🇦🇺 ASIC News

June 16th 2026

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat Änderungen des Anhangs 8 der Verordnung vom 4. März 2022 über Massnahmen im Zusammenhang mit der Situation in der Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) publiziert.

AI Analysis

On 15 June 2026, the Swiss Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) amended **Annex 8** of the Swiss Ordinance of 4 March 2022 on measures in connection with the situation in Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) and published the updated sanctions list on its website. The changes, which enter into force the same day at 23:00, require Swiss financial intermediaries to immediately update their sanctions screening, freeze assets of newly listed parties, and report affected relationships to SECO while also fulfilling their anti‑money‑laundering (AML) duties under the Anti‑Money Laundering Act (GwG).

What Changed

- Annex 8 of the Ordinance of 4 March 2022 on measures in connection with the situation in Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) has been amended by the WBF to update the list of sanctioned persons and...
The WBF has published the updated Annex 8 and associated sanctions-list changes on its website, making these changes the operative reference for Swiss sanctions screening and asset-freeze obligations.
The amended measures enter into force on 15 June 2026 at 23:00, creating an immediate and time‑critical requirement for financial intermediaries to align their controls with the new Annex 8 content.
Financial intermediaries are instructed to implement all prohibitions arising from the Ordinance, including any new or expanded restrictions connected to the updated Annex 8 listings.
Financial intermediaries must freeze the assets of persons and entities newly designated or otherwise affected by the Annex 8 amendment and ensure no prohibited transactions or services are carried...

Suggested Considerations

Review the updated Annex 8 of SR 946.231.176.72 as published by the WBF and obtain the latest Swiss sanctions-list data (including from SESAM/SECO where used) before the 23:00 effective time.
Update internal sanctions screening lists, vendor‑provided screening tools and watchlist filters to incorporate all new and amended entries in Annex 8.
Run an immediate batch screening of all customers, beneficial owners, controlling persons, counterparties, securities holdings and payment flows against the updated Annex 8 once the changes are operative.
Identify all existing and pending business relationships that match updated Annex 8 entries and classify them as sanctioned in internal systems.
Freeze without delay any assets, accounts, securities, or other economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons and entities listed in Annex 8, in line with the Ordinance.

Key Dates

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

June 15th 2026

CSSF press release concerning certain CNC publications: Q&A; CNC 26/037 entitled "A reminder of the differences between annual accounts prepared for statutory purposes and annual accounts prepared for contractual purposes or on a voluntary basis” and interview with the chairman of the CNC (Mr. Yvan Thommes) (only in French)

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF is flagging to the market a new **CNC Q&A 26/037** that clarifies the distinction between **statutory (legal) annual accounts** and **annual accounts prepared for contractual or voluntary purposes**, and an interview indicating an upcoming **overhaul of Luxembourg accounting legislation**. This matters for compliance and finance teams because mislabeling or misusing “statutory” accounts, or applying CNC doctrine inconsistently, can create legal, regulatory, lending, and investor‑information risks, and the announced legislative reform implies future adjustments to accounting policies, reporting processes, and governance.

What Changed

- The CSSF formally draws regulated entities’ attention to CNC Q&A 26/037, elevating it as a key interpretative reference on the concepts of annual accounts prepared for legal/statutory purposes...
The CNC Q&A 26/037 provides clarified definitions of “comptes annuels établis à fins légales” (statutory annual accounts) and “comptes annuels établis à des fins contractuelles ou sur base...
The Q&A gives practical answers to frequently asked questions from preparers about when accounts qualify as statutory versus merely contractual or voluntary, and how this affects applicable...
The Q&A addresses related issues, such as the extent to which CNC doctrine and Luxembourg GAAP must be followed for contractual or voluntary accounts, and the risks of presenting non‑statutory...
The CSSF also highlights an interview with the CNC chairman announcing that Luxembourg accounting legislation will undergo a refonte (major overhaul), signaling that current CNC doctrine, including...

Suggested Considerations

Obtain and review the full CNC Q&A 26/037 and the CNC chairman’s interview (French‑language originals), ensuring that finance, accounting, and compliance teams understand the clarified distinctions between statutory and contractual/voluntary annual accounts.
Map all sets of financial statements prepared by each Luxembourg entity (statutory accounts, covenant‑based or lender‑specific accounts, group reporting packages, management accounts, etc.) and classify each set as statutory or contractual/voluntary in line with CNC Q&A 26/037 definitions.
Update internal accounting policies and manuals to explicitly define statutory versus contractual/voluntary annual accounts, specify the applicable accounting principles and disclosures for each, and describe any differences in measurement, presentation, or scope.
Assess current practices for communicating financial information to lenders, investors, regulators, and other stakeholders to confirm that non‑statutory accounts are not labeled or presented in a way that could be misinterpreted as statutory accounts approved under Luxembourg company law.
Implement clear labeling and disclosure conventions on the face of financial statements and in accompanying notes (e.g., in engagement reports, board minutes, and management communications) to distinguish statutory annual accounts from any contractual or voluntary accounts.

Key Dates

08 June 2026

– Publication of the interview with the CNC chairman in Paperjam announcing that Luxembourg accounting legislation will be overhauled

15 June 2026

– CSSF press release published, drawing attention to CNC Q&A 26/037 and the CNC chairman’s interview and signaling supervisory expectations that entities consider this doctrine when preparing annual accounts

Compliance Impact

Failure to correctly distinguish and label statutory versus contractual/voluntary annual accounts can lead to breaches of Luxembourg company law, mis‑disclosure to investors, lenders, and regulators, and increased enforcement risk from the CSSF and other authorities. Misalignment between CNC doctrine and practice may also complicate audits and regulatory reviews, leading to qualified opinions, remediation requirements, or sanctions in severe cases.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

June 15th 2026

CSSF communiqué concerning certain CNC publications (only in French)

Q&A CNC 26/037 titled “A reminder of the differences between annual accounts prepared for statutory purposes and annual accounts prepared for contractual purposes or on a voluntary basis” and interview with the chairman of the CNC (Mr. Yvan Thommes)

AI Analysis

The CSSF is formally directing market participants’ attention to new guidance from the Luxembourg Commission des normes comptables (CNC) clarifying the distinction between **statutory annual accounts** and **contractual/voluntary annual accounts**, and to an interview announcing a forthcoming overhaul of Luxembourg accounting law. This matters for compliance and finance functions because it affects how firms label, prepare, approve, file and use financial statements in regulatory, contractual and investor contexts, and foreshadows medium‑term changes to the Luxembourg accounting framework.

What Changed

- The CSSF endorses and promotes CNC Q&A 26/037 as the reference clarification on the concept of “comptes annuels établis à fins légales” (statutory annual accounts) versus annual accounts prepared...
The Q&A provides clear criteria to distinguish statutory accounts from non‑statutory accounts, including their legal basis, approval process, filing and publication obligations, and permissible use...
The CNC guidance clarifies that statutory annual accounts must fully comply with Luxembourg accounting law (including mandatory layouts, valuation rules and disclosures), whereas...
The CNC addresses frequent practical questions from preparers, including whether financial statements prepared for banks, covenants, shareholders’ agreements, management incentive plans or...
The CSSF communicates that misunderstandings between statutory and contractual accounts remain common, implicitly warning against the risk of using non‑statutory statements in contexts where...

Suggested Considerations

Identify all sets of financial statements prepared by the firm or its Luxembourg entities (statutory, covenant/banking, shareholder/management, group‑reporting, voluntary) and map which are statutory annual accounts under Luxembourg law and which are contractual or voluntary.
Review the CNC Q&A 26/037 in detail and update internal accounting manuals and group reporting policies to embed the CNC’s definitions, terminology and criteria for statutory versus non‑statutory annual accounts.
Implement a clear labelling and disclosure convention so that all non‑statutory financial statements explicitly state their nature (contractual or voluntary) and are not presented or communicated as statutory annual accounts.
Update templates for board and shareholder approvals, minutes and resolutions to ensure that the correct set of statutory annual accounts is approved for legal purposes such as profit appropriation, dividend distribution, capital reduction and regulatory filings.
Review all contractual arrangements (loan agreements, bond indentures, shareholder agreements, management incentive plans and service contracts) to determine whether they require statutory annual accounts or allow contractual/adjusted accounts, and align documentation and practice accordingly.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The AFM published a refined interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b after market consultation, saying the rules require auditors to occupy a central governance role and to have decisive influence in audit firms. The guidance matters because the AFM will assess not only formal ownership and voting structures but also whether investor rights, shareholder agreements, and approval rights undermine auditors’ real control, especially in firms with private equity or other external capital.

What Changed

- The AFM has refined its interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b after receiving market feedback, while keeping the core principle that auditors must remain central and influential in the firm.
The AFM now expressly states that auditors must have decisive influence within the audit firm, not merely formal status or nominal voting rights.
The AFM confirms that the requirements also apply when an audit firm admits external investors, including private equity investors.
The AFM indicates that it will look at the actual exercise of control, not just the legal form, when assessing compliance with the Wta.
The AFM’s interpretation allows investor participation only so long as it does not prevent auditors from using their majority rights in practice or from acting in the public interest.

Suggested Considerations

Audit firms must review their governance model to confirm that auditors genuinely hold a central position in both management and ownership decision-making.
Audit firms must test whether their current structure gives auditors decisive influence in practice, not just on paper.
Audit firms with external capital must review shareholder agreements, voting agreements, veto rights, and reserved matters to ensure these do not override auditor control.
Audit firms must assess whether approval rights are limited to fundamental matters and do not extend to routine business control or editorial influence over audit judgments.
Compliance teams must map who actually determines day-to-day policy and who can block or steer decisions in practice.

Key Dates

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

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)

Compliance Impact

Rescission would not immediately apply until a final rule and effective date, but once effective it will require a fundamental re‑design of U.S. equity order‑routing, best‑execution, and surveillance frameworks that have been built around Regulation NMS’s order‑protection architecture. Non‑compliance with any new framework (and with ongoing best‑execution and conduct duties during and after the transition) could lead to enforcement actions, client disputes, and significant market conduct risk, even if the specific NMS provisions are removed.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

🇺🇸 CFTC Consultation medium

June 11th 2026

CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Whistleblower Rules

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CFTC is proposing to revise its whistleblower award framework to make smaller awards more predictable by presuming a **30% award rate for claims of $5 million or less**, subject to Commission judgment. This is a significant compliance development because it aligns more closely with SEC whistleblower methodology and may encourage more whistleblower submissions tied to Commodity Exchange Act violations, increasing the need for firms to detect issues early and respond quickly.

What Changed

- The CFTC proposes a 30% presumption for whistleblower awards of $5 million or less.
The presumption remains subject to Commission discretion and application of relevant regulatory factors.
The proposal is modeled on SEC Rule 21F-6(c) to further harmonize CFTC and SEC whistleblower frameworks.
The CFTC says the change is intended to improve the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of award processing.
The proposal would affect how the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office evaluates award claims under Part 165.

Suggested Considerations

Review whistleblower intake, escalation, and investigation procedures to ensure the firm can identify potential CEA violations before they become external whistleblower submissions.
Update training for front office, operations, compliance, and management personnel on CFTC whistleblower protections and the increased incentive structure.
Assess whether confidentiality, reporting, and non-retaliation controls are sufficiently documented to withstand scrutiny if a whistleblower complaint arises.
Reconfirm that internal policies do not discourage employees from communicating with the CFTC or otherwise create retaliation risk.
Monitor the Federal Register publication date and decide whether the firm, trade association, or counsel should submit a comment during the open comment period.

Key Dates

11 June 2026

- The CFTC published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to its whistleblower rules

TBD (30 days after Federal Register publication)

- The public comment period closes 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register

TBD (after comment review)

- The CFTC may finalize, modify, or withdraw the proposal after reviewing public comments

Compliance Impact

The practical impact is moderate to high because the proposal raises the attractiveness of reporting to the CFTC and may increase the likelihood of externally originated enforcement matters. Firms that fail to maintain strong internal reporting channels, prompt investigations, and anti-retaliation safeguards face higher risk of enforcement, litigation, and reputational harm if a whistleblower report is filed.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CFTC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

June 11th 2026

Resolution Capital Limited: Bafin imposes administrative fine

On 27 May 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed an administrative fine amounting to €80,000 on Resolution Capital Limited. The reason for this fine was a breach of supervisory duties in connection with a contravention of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). In November 2025, Resolution Capital Limited failed to submit a voting rights notification within the prescribed period.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed an €80,000 administrative fine on Resolution Capital Limited for a **breach of supervisory duties** linked to a **late voting rights notification** under sections 33 et seq. of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). The case underscores that failure to ensure timely major shareholding notifications is treated not only as a technical reporting breach but as an organisational and governance failure, with potential fines up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue for legal entities.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

November 2025 DEADLINE

On 27 May 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) prohibited the public offering of participation certificates of AMAGVIK Int. AG, based in St. Gallen, Switzerland, due to a violation of the German Capital Investment Act (VermAnlG). For this reason, AMAGVIK Int. AG may not offer its own participation certificates to the public in Germany.

AI Analysis

BaFin has issued a final enforcement measure prohibiting AMAGVIK Int. AG, a Swiss issuer, from publicly offering its participation certificates (capital investments) in Germany due to the absence of a BaFin-approved prospectus under the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz – VermAnlG). This action underscores that any public offer of capital investments into Germany – including cross‑border offers from non‑German entities – must be preceded by an approved sales prospectus that meets VermAnlG content and form requirements.

What Changed

- AMAGVIK Int. AG is expressly prohibited from offering its own participation certificates (a form of capital investment) to the public in Germany due to non-compliance with VermAnlG prospectus...
BaFin has confirmed that the prohibition measure is final and binding, meaning the firm has no remaining ordinary legal remedies to continue the offering in Germany without a compliant prospectus.
The case reiterates that public offers of capital investments in Germany require prior publication of a sales prospectus approved by BaFin, containing the minimum information mandated by VermAnlG.
BaFin’s prospectus approval is limited to verifying completeness, understandability, coherence, and consistency of the information, and does not assess factual correctness of the data, the...
Issuers of capital investments remain fully liable for the accuracy of the information in the prospectus and must clearly state in the prospectus that BaFin does not check correctness of content,...

Suggested Considerations

Verify immediately whether any existing or planned offerings of participation certificates or other VermAnlG‑covered capital investments to German investors are supported by a BaFin‑approved prospectus, and suspend public offers where no such prospectus exists.
Review all cross‑border distribution arrangements to ensure non‑German issuers offering capital investments into Germany understand and comply with VermAnlG prospectus obligations before any public marketing or solicitation.
Implement or strengthen internal controls requiring legal/compliance sign‑off that a BaFin‑approved prospectus is in place (and properly filed) prior to any public offering of capital investments, especially for retail distribution.
Update product governance and new product approval policies to explicitly cover VermAnlG capital investments, including participation certificates, and to require checks against BaFin’s prospectus database before onboarding or recommending such products.
Enhance due diligence procedures on third‑party issuers (including Swiss and other non‑EU issuers) to confirm prospectus approval status, prospectus content compliance, and clear disclosure that BaFin does not verify correctness or product quality.

Key Dates

02 July 2025 DEADLINE

- BaFin issues a warning about offers from Gallus Immobilien entities and AMAGVIK Int. AG being made without the legally required sales prospectus, signalling early supervisory concern with these products

27 May 2026 DEADLINE

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission established joint data standards under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022. The final rule establishes technical standards for data submitted to certain financial regulatory agencies. Eight additional…

AI Analysis

The SEC has adopted **joint data standards** under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022 (FDTA) to govern how data is formatted and submitted to specified U.S. financial regulators, including the SEC. This materially raises the bar on data structure, tagging, and interoperability for regulatory reporting and disclosures, requiring firms to shift from document-centric to **machine‑readable, standardized data** across multiple reporting regimes.

What Changed

- The SEC, jointly with seven other U.S. financial regulators, has established mandatory technical data standards for information submitted to those agencies pursuant to the Financial Data...
The joint standards apply to regulatory data collections within each participating agency’s remit (e.g., SEC filings and reports, certain prudential and market data submissions), and are intended to...
The rule requires use of structured, non‑proprietary, machine‑readable formats (such as XML, JSON, XBRL, or similar open standards) where data is collected electronically, moving away from...
The standards require use of public, non‑exclusive data dictionaries and taxonomies, so that data elements (e.g., fields, metrics, identifiers) are consistently defined and tagged across different...
The rule embeds interoperability requirements, so that the same data element (for example, a LEI, CUSIP, counterparty ID, asset class, or exposure type) is reported using harmonized definitions and...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all current and upcoming regulatory data submissions to the SEC and other FDTA‑covered agencies to identify which reports are likely to be brought under the joint data standards.
Review and update data governance frameworks so that key data elements (counterparty identifiers, instrument identifiers, balances, exposures, classifications) are uniquely defined, consistently sourced, and traceable across internal systems in alignment with anticipated joint taxonomies.
Assess existing regulatory reporting systems and vendor solutions (including XBRL tools, data warehouses, and filing platforms) and develop an upgrade plan to support the new machine‑readable, standardized formats and schemas.
Establish an internal FDTA/joint data standards implementation program, with clear ownership (e.g., finance, regulatory reporting, data management, IT) and a cross‑functional steering committee to oversee design, testing, and rollout.
Engage with technology, regtech, and data vendors to confirm their timelines for supporting the new SEC and cross‑agency standards and to obtain updated taxonomies, schemas, and validation rules as soon as they are published.

Key Dates

Topics:

All Firms

🇮🇪 CBI News

June 8th 2026

Issue 8 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

June 8th 2026

The CSSF consults on Guidance on Money Market Fund Liquid Asset Levels

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF has launched a consultation on national **Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset (WLA) Levels**, aligned with the European Commission’s 2026 MMF report, which defines “market resilience” WLA benchmarks above the MMFR regulatory minimums. This signals a move toward **enhanced liquidity risk management and intensified supervisory scrutiny** for Luxembourg‑authorised MMFs whose WLA levels fall below these resilience benchmarks, even if they remain above the legal minimum.

What Changed

- The CSSF, in coordination with the European Commission, AMF (France) and Central Bank of Ireland, is consulting on national guidance that operationalises the Commission’s “market resilience” levels...
The guidance will introduce non-binding but supervisory‑relevant WLA benchmarks designed to indicate when an MMF’s liquidity profile may warrant closer scrutiny and additional supervisory engagement.
The consultation builds on the European Commission’s 11 May 2026 report, which identifies WLA benchmarks of 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for LVNAV and CNAV MMFs, compared with the MMFR regulatory minima...
The guidance is intended to support more consistent and well‑calibrated supervision of MMFs across the EU, specifically on liquidity resilience under stress.
MMFs that fall below the identified “market resilience” WLA levels, even while remaining compliant with the MMFR minimum percentages, can expect increased supervisory scrutiny, closer monitoring and...

Suggested Considerations

Review the CSSF consultation paper “Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels” in detail and map the proposed WLA resilience benchmarks against existing MMF liquidity policies, procedures and internal limits.
Perform a quantitative impact analysis comparing each MMF’s historical and current WLA levels against both MMFR minimum requirements and the Commission’s market resilience benchmarks (20% for VNAV; 40% for LVNAV and CNAV) to identify potential shortfalls or pressure points.
Assess and, where necessary, update MMF liquidity risk management frameworks to incorporate explicit internal WLA targets, triggers and escalation procedures linked to the new resilience benchmarks, including governance oversight and board reporting.
Integrate the proposed WLA resilience levels into stress testing programmes under Article 28 MMFR, ensuring scenarios reflect the ability of funds to maintain or restore WLA around the benchmark levels under severe but plausible market stress.
Revisit know‑your‑investor / liability profile analysis under Article 27 MMFR to ensure that internal WLA targets adequately reflect investor concentration, redemption behaviour, dealing frequency and distribution channels.

Key Dates

11 May 2026

– European Commission publishes its report on the adequacy of the MMFR and FAQs, identifying market resilience WLA levels for VNAV and CNAV/LVNAV MMFs

15 May 2026

– CSSF informs the market of the Commission’s MMF report and FAQs and flags the identified WLA “market resilience” benchmarks

8 June 2026

– CSSF publishes the communiqué launching the consultation on “Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels.”

3 August 2026 DEADLINE

– Deadline for stakeholders to submit electronic responses on the consultation to the CSSF at opc_prud_risk@cssf.lu

Compliance Impact

The immediate legal impact is limited because the text is a consultation on guidance, not a binding rule change, but the direction of travel is towards higher de‑facto liquidity expectations and more intrusive supervision where WLA levels fall below resilience benchmarks. Non‑alignment with the eventual guidance is likely to result in increased supervisory challenge, potential remediation demands and heightened risk that liquidity weaknesses are escalated within the CSSF’s prudential risk framework.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundBank

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation high

June 8th 2026

Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels

Consultation Paper

AI Analysis

The CSSF has launched a consultation on new **Guidance on Money Market Fund (MMF) Weekly Liquid Asset Levels**, signalling its intention to clarify supervisory expectations on the calibration and use of weekly liquid asset (WLA) buffers under the EU Money Market Funds Regulation (MMFR). This matters for compliance teams because it will likely drive changes to MMF liquidity risk frameworks, escalation triggers, governance around liquidity thresholds, and potentially the design of internal stress tests and contingency plans. ---

What Changed

Given the consultation nature and the absence of a published consultation text in the extract, the following points reflect what compliance teams should reasonably anticipate and prepare for, based...
The CSSF is consulting on formal guidance that will specify how MMFs domiciled in Luxembourg should determine, monitor, and maintain weekly liquid asset levels under the EU Money Market Funds...
The guidance is expected to operationalise the MMFR WLA requirements (for example, minimum weekly liquidity levels and interaction with redemption activity) by setting out supervisory expectations on...
The consultation will likely address the interaction between WLA levels and the use of liquidity management tools (such as gates, fees, or suspensions), including expectations on when and how...
The CSSF is expected to clarify how MMFs should incorporate WLA targets and thresholds into their internal risk management policies, including stress-testing assumptions, early warning indicators,...

Suggested Considerations

Review the CSSF consultation paper in full as soon as it is available and identify all proposed expectations relating to weekly liquid asset levels, monitoring, and escalation.
Map the proposed CSSF guidance against current MMF liquidity policies, prospectus disclosures, and internal procedures to identify gaps and potential areas needing enhancement.
Assess whether existing MMF weekly liquidity monitoring tools, dashboards, and reporting are sufficient to meet anticipated CSSF expectations on frequency, granularity, and early warning indicators.
Evaluate the current escalation framework for declining WLA levels, including board and senior management involvement, and update governance documentation to align with the likely CSSF approach to thresholds and decision‑making.
Review MMF stress‑testing methodologies to ensure that scenarios adequately capture severe but plausible redemption and market stress in relation to WLA levels and that results are integrated into risk appetite and contingency planning.

Key Dates

TBD (final guidance – est. late 2026)

– Expected date for CSSF to publish final guidance on MMF weekly liquid asset levels, following review of consultation feedback

08 June 2026

– CSSF publishes consultation communiqué “Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels” and opens consultation on its proposed guidance

TBD (consultation deadline – likely mid‑2026) DEADLINE

– Expected closing date for industry comments on the consultation (to be confirmed once the full consultation paper and response deadline are made available by CSSF)

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the forthcoming CSSF guidance, once finalised, could result in supervisory findings, remediation programmes, and potential restrictions on MMF activities, particularly in stressed markets where liquidity management failures are highly scrutinised. Given MMFs’ systemic importance, firms should treat this as a high‑impact development for liquidity risk management, board oversight, and investor protection.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundBank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

June 5th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Sudan

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat den Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) geändert.

AI Analysis

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat am 4. Juni 2026 den Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) angepasst, wodurch die schweizerischen Sanktionen gegen Sudan aktualisiert wurden. Dies verpflichtet beaufsichtigte Institute, ihre Sanktions- und Embargoprüfungen umgehend an die neuen gelisteten Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen anzupassen und sicherzustellen, dass sämtliche Vermögenssperren und Meldepflichten nach schweizerischem Sanktions- und Geldwäscherecht eingehalten werden.

What Changed

- Der Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) wurde durch Entscheid des WBF aktualisiert, was Änderungen an der Sanktionsliste (gelistete natürliche...
Die aktualisierte Sanktionsliste zu Sudan ist für alle von der Verordnung erfassten Finanzintermediäre unmittelbar verbindlich und ist bei der Prüfung von Kunden, wirtschaftlich Berechtigten,...
Vermögenswerte von neu gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen müssen gemäss Verordnung unverzüglich eingefroren und dürfen weder direkt noch indirekt zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
Bereits bestehende Geschäftsbeziehungen zu neu gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen sind zu suspendieren bzw. abzuwickeln, soweit dies mit den gesetzlichen Vermögenssperren vereinbar ist.
Institute sind verpflichtet, gefundene Treffer (Treffer bei Konten, Depots, Zahlungs- oder Handelsgeschäften) zu gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen den zuständigen Bundesstellen nach den...

Suggested Considerations

Führen Sie umgehend einen Abgleich aller Kunden-, Konten- und wirtschaftlich Berechtigten-Stammdaten sowie relevanter Transaktionen gegen die aktualisierte Sudan-Sanktionsliste gemäss Anhang 2 der Verordnung SR 946.231.18 durch.
Identifizieren und dokumentieren Sie alle Treffer (Hits) zu gelisteten Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen und prüfen Sie diese formal (True Hit vs. False Positive) unter Anwendung eines dokumentierten, vier-Augen-prüfenden Verfahrens.
Frieren Sie Vermögenswerte von bestätigten gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen unverzüglich ein, blockieren Sie Transaktionen und verhindern Sie jede direkte oder indirekte Bereitstellung von wirtschaftlichen Ressourcen, in Übereinstimmung mit der Sudan-Verordnung.
Erstatten Sie umgehend die erforderlichen Meldungen an die zuständigen Bundesstellen (insbesondere SECO bzw. die im Sanktionsrecht vorgesehenen Behörden) sowie – soweit einschlägig – Verdachtsmeldungen an die Meldestelle für Geldwäscherei (MROS).
Aktualisieren Sie Ihre Sanktions- und AML-Richtlinien, Arbeitsanweisungen und Kontrollpläne, um die neuen Sudan-spezifischen Listungen und Prozesse zur Vermögenssperre und Meldung explizit zu berücksichtigen.

Key Dates

25 May 2005

- Erlass der Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18), die den rechtlichen Rahmen für schweizerische Sudan-Sanktionen schafft

04 June 2026

- Das WBF beschliesst und veröffentlicht die Änderung des Anhangs 2 der Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18); die aktualisierte Sanktionsliste tritt in Kraft und ist ab diesem Datum anzuwenden

Compliance Impact

Die Änderung des Anhangs 2 der Sudan-Verordnung erhöht das unmittelbare Sanktions- und Geldwäschereirisiko für Schweizer Finanzintermediäre bei unzureichender Listenpflege, Überwachung und Meldeprozessen. Verstösse gegen schweizerische Sanktionsbestimmungen können zu erheblichen aufsichtsrechtlichen Massnahmen durch FINMA, strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen sowie schwerwiegenden Reputationsschäden führen.

References

[1] finma.ch/de/news/2026/06/20260605-sr-946-231-18/

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerPayment Provider

🇬🇧 FCA News

June 5th 2026

Simpler climate reporting rules could save firms £20m annually

Investment firms could save around £20m a year under new proposals from the FCA to simplify climate reporting for investment products. The FCA estimates it could deliver these savings by replacing detailed product-level reports based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) with simpler, more targeted information for retail investors, in line with the Consumer Duty.The changes aim to give investors clearer insight into how climate risks – such as floods, storms and ot...

Sectors:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

June 5th 2026

Administrative sanction of 17 April 2026

Administrative sanction imposed on a registered alternative investment fund manager

AI Analysis

The CSSF has published an administrative sanction dated 17 April 2026 imposed on a **registered alternative investment fund manager (registered AIFM)**, but the public notice contains no detail on the nature of the breach, legal basis, or penalty level, which are presumably only available in the linked PDFs. For compliance teams, this is another data point that the CSSF is actively enforcing the AIFMD and related Luxembourg implementing laws against even registered (sub‑threshold) AIFMs, not only fully authorised managers. Because the body text and PDFs are not accessible from the prompt, the analysis below focuses on the **regulatory framework and typical CSSF enforcement themes** that are most likely relevant, and how compliance teams at AIFMs should respond. ---

What Changed

There are no formal rule changes announced in the short notice itself; however, the enforcement action reinforces several practical expectations that compliance teams should treat as de‑facto...
CSSF confirms that registered alternative investment fund managers are fully subject to Luxembourg’s AIFM framework, including the Law of 12 July 2013 on alternative investment fund managers and the...
CSSF reiterates, through enforcement practice, that registration status (sub‑threshold AIFM) does not shield managers from administrative sanctions where organisational, conduct, reporting, or...
CSSF continues its policy of public naming and shaming through publication of administrative sanctions, signalling that reputational impact is a key component of its deterrence strategy.
The sanction underscores the CSSF’s readiness to use its full sanctioning toolkit under the AIFM Law, which can include monetary fines, public statements, and prohibitions or restrictions on...

Suggested Considerations

Obtain and review the full CSSF sanction decision PDFs published with the 17 April 2026 administrative sanction to identify the specific legal provisions, facts and control failures cited.
Map the identified breaches (e.g. governance, risk management, reporting, valuation, delegation, marketing, or conduct of business) against your firm’s current policies and procedures under the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs and the AIFMD framework.
Perform a targeted gap analysis for registered AIFMs, focusing on whether “light” registration has led to under‑resourced compliance, risk, valuation, or reporting functions that could attract similar enforcement.
Review and, where necessary, update internal governance arrangements, including board oversight, documented decision‑making, and escalation processes for regulatory issues, to align with CSSF expectations evidenced in recent sanctions against AIFMs and management companies.
Test the effectiveness of regulatory reporting and disclosure processes (including Annex IV reporting, investor disclosures, periodic reporting, and prospectus/issuing document accuracy) to ensure they are complete, timely and consistent with CSSF rules.

Key Dates

17 April 2026

- CSSF adopts an administrative sanction decision against a registered alternative investment fund manager

05 June 2026

- CSSF publishes the administrative sanction notice on its website, including links to the detailed sanction decision in PDF form

Compliance Impact

The compliance impact is medium to high: while the publication does not create new rules, it underscores that the CSSF will actively sanction even registered AIFMs and publicly disclose those sanctions, increasing both regulatory and reputational risk for weakly controlled managers. Firms that treat registration as a “lighter” supervisory regime without proportionate controls are particularly exposed to similar action.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager

🇬🇧 FCA Policy low

June 5th 2026

Bank of England and FCA MoU on supervision of market infrastructure: 2025/26 review

The Bank of England has published a joint review with the FCA on how the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for financial market infrastructure (FMI) is working. The Bank of England and the FCA (the authorities) cooperate on the supervision of FMIs.The authorities consulted with FMIs to assess the effectiveness of cooperation between the Bank and FCA over the past 12 months.Following the responses, the authorities have concluded that the arrangements for cooperation remain effective with appro...

AI Analysis

The Bank of England and FCA have completed their 2025/26 joint review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) governing cooperation on the supervision of UK financial market infrastructures (FMIs) and have concluded that current arrangements remain effective, well‑coordinated and free from material duplication. For compliance teams at FMIs and connected firms, this confirms regulatory expectations around information‑sharing, supervisory engagement and coordinated oversight by the two authorities, but does not introduce new rules or materially change existing supervisory practice.

What Changed

- The Bank of England and FCA confirm, following consultation with FMIs over the last 12 months, that the existing MoU framework for supervisory cooperation on financial market infrastructures...
The authorities explicitly reaffirm their commitment to efficient coordination to enhance the effectiveness of supervision, signalling continued emphasis on timely, accurate and proactive information...
The statement maintains, rather than revises, the current allocation of responsibilities between the Bank of England (as primary prudential and systemic supervisor for FMIs) and the FCA (as conduct,...
The authorities confirm the continuation of an annual review process of the MoU, including consultation with supervised FMIs to obtain feedback on how coordination is working in practice, embedding...
The publication sits alongside the underlying 2025 MoU text (and the broader multi‑regulator MoU framework with FCA, PRA and PSR), reinforcing that FMIs should align their governance, reporting and...

Suggested Considerations

Confirm internally that your firm’s regulatory engagement framework recognises the Bank of England–FCA MoU and clearly allocates responsibilities for managing relationships with both authorities in line with their respective roles.
Review and, where necessary, update internal regulatory communications and escalation procedures to ensure that information relevant to both the Bank of England and FCA can be shared consistently, accurately and on a timely basis, in anticipation of coordinated supervisory expectations.
Prepare to continue providing structured, constructive feedback during the annual MoU review process by maintaining records of supervisory interactions with each authority, including instances of overlap, gaps, or divergent expectations.
Align incident management, operational resilience and major change approval processes with the expectation that both authorities may need to be informed and coordinated, and verify that notification playbooks and contact trees reflect this dual‑regulator structure.
For groups operating multiple FMIs or cross‑border infrastructures, map where other regulators rely on the Bank of England/FCA supervisory cooperation (for example, via substituted compliance or recognition regimes) and integrate this into your global regulatory engagement strategy.

Key Dates

2024

– The Bank of England and FCA wrote to CCPs, RIEs and RCSDs to request feedback on the effectiveness of cooperation under the MoU based on firms’ interactions during 2024

2025/26

– The authorities conducted the annual joint review of the MoU for FMIs, considering the responses received from supervised entities over the preceding 12 months and assessing the effectiveness of coordination and duplication

Annually (ongoing)

– The Bank of England and FCA will continue to review the MoU each year, including soliciting feedback from FMIs, to confirm that supervisory cooperation remains effective and to identify potential enhancements

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance would not typically arise directly from the MoU review outcome itself, but FMIs that fail to align with the coordinated expectations and information‑sharing practices of the Bank and FCA risk fragmented supervisory relationships, increased scrutiny, and potential enforcement where underlying prudential, conduct, or operational resilience requirements are not met. Effective engagement with both regulators remains critical to maintaining authorisation, recognition status and continued operation of systemically important market infrastructure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇭🇰 SFC Consultation high

June 5th 2026

SFC and HKMA conclude joint consultation on amendments to Clearing Rules for over-the-counter derivative transactions

No description available.

AI Analysis

The SFC and HKMA have concluded a joint consultation to amend the Clearing Rules for OTC derivative transactions by standardising the calculation periods used to determine mandatory clearing obligations. From 1 March 2027, two fixed annual periods—1 March to 31 May and 1 September to 30 November—will be designated as calculation periods, replacing the current practice of periodically updating the list via legislative amendments. This change increases regulatory certainty and reduces the need for frequent rule‑changes, but requires firms to adjust their internal systems, position‑monitoring processes, and compliance calendars to align with the new permanent schedule.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

TBD (est. late 2026)

– SFC and HKMA proceed with the legislative process to introduce the proposed amendments to the Clearing Rules, following the conclusion of the consultation

29 January 2026

– SFC and HKMA issue the joint consultation paper on standardising calculation periods under the Clearing Rules

27 February 2026 DEADLINE

– Deadline for market participants to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the Clearing Rules

01 March 2027

– Proposed amendments to the Clearing Rules come into effect, designating 1 March to 31 May and 1 September to 30 November each year as standard calculation periods

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the amended Clearing Rules could result in regulatory enforcement action, including fines, public censure, or restrictions on trading activities, as well as reputational damage and potential operational disruption if positions are not properly cleared within the prescribed periods. The shift to a permanent, formulaic approach also increases the importance of robust internal monitoring and governance, as firms will no longer be able to rely on ad hoc legislative updates to guide their compliance calendars.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SFC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News low

June 4th 2026

SEC Announces New Members of Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced five new members of the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The new members were appointed to four-year terms and will join the 15 current …

Sectors:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

🇦🇪 ADGM News

June 4th 2026

Mbrif Partners With Numou To Expand Financing Pathways For Innovation Led Businesses In The Uae

Sectors:

Topics:

FintechBank

🇱🇺 CSSF News

June 4th 2026

Investment fund managers

Situation as of 31 March 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

June 4th 2026

Global situation of undertakings for collective investment at the end of April 2026

Press release 26/11

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇦🇺 ASIC News

June 4th 2026

Fashion and beauty retailers trading under the Zara, H&M and Sephora brands pay $596,000 in infringement notices for failing to lodge financial reports on time

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation high

June 4th 2026

Communication on the CSSF Feedback Report - Thematic review - valuation framework for less liquid and illiquid assets

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF has published a Feedback Report following a thematic review of the **valuation framework for less liquid and illiquid assets**, focused primarily on Luxembourg AIFMs managing AIFs in asset classes such as private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private debt and fund of funds, and on UCITS “trash ratio” positions under Article 41(2) of the UCI Law. All Luxembourg IFMs are explicitly expected to benchmark their existing valuation frameworks against the CSSF’s observations and recommendations and to implement corrective measures, with valuation risk confirmed as a key supervisory priority for 2026.

What Changed

- The CSSF publishes a dedicated Feedback Report on the thematic review of valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets and formally expects IFMs to use it as guidance for implementing...
All Luxembourg IFMs are required to conduct a benchmarking exercise of their valuation frameworks against the CSSF’s observations and recommendations set out in the new Feedback Report.
Where gaps or weaknesses are identified through this benchmarking, IFMs are expected to implement corrective measures to strengthen their valuation policies, procedures and lifecycle controls for...
The thematic review scope formally covers AIFMs of AIFs investing in less liquid and illiquid assets (including private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private debt and fund of funds), and, on...
The CSSF explicitly links this thematic work to previous supervisory exercises (ESMA CSA on valuation, CSSF self‑assessment questionnaires, and on‑site inspection feedback) and consolidates...

Suggested Considerations

Perform a structured benchmarking of existing valuation policies, procedures, methodologies and controls against the detailed observations and recommendations in the CSSF Feedback Report on valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets.
Document, at IFM and fund level, all identified gaps or weaknesses in the current valuation framework, including for AIFs in illiquid strategies and UCITS Article 41(2) trash ratio positions.
Develop and approve a remediation plan with clear owners, milestones and target dates to address identified shortcomings in valuation governance, methodologies, model validation, data sources and control processes.
Review and, where necessary, update valuation policies and procedures to ensure they explicitly cover less liquid and illiquid assets, stressed market conditions, use of external valuers, and documentation standards across the investment lifecycle.
Enhance valuation governance by clearly defining roles and responsibilities (including segregation from portfolio management where applicable), escalation procedures, and oversight by the board/senior management.

Key Dates

End 2023

– CSSF thematic review launched by dedicated questionnaire to IFMs, with work conducted through 2024 and 2025 (contextual start of the current thematic exercise)

Throughout 2024 and 2025

– CSSF conducts off‑site and on‑site work as part of the dedicated thematic review on valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets

2026 DEADLINE

– Valuation risk for less liquid and illiquid assets is confirmed as a key supervisory priority, implying heightened supervisory focus and potential follow‑up actions during the year; no hard implementation deadline is set but prompt action is implicitly expected

04 June 2026

– CSSF publishes the Communication and Feedback Report on the thematic review and formally expects IFMs to perform a benchmarking exercise and implement corrective measures as needed

Compliance Impact

Failure to benchmark and remediate valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets exposes IFMs to material supervisory risk, including targeted reviews, formal remedial orders or sanctions, particularly given the CSSF’s designation of valuation risk as a key supervisory priority in 2026. Deficient valuation practices also heighten the risk of NAV errors, investor detriment and potential civil liability or reputational damage.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation high

June 3rd 2026

CSSF Feedback Report - Thematic review - valuation framework for less liquid and illiquid assets

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF has issued a feedback report on a thematic review of the **valuation framework for less liquid and illiquid assets**, signalling intensified supervisory focus on how Luxembourg investment fund managers value complex, hard‑to‑price positions. This matters because it will drive stricter expectations around valuation governance, model oversight, data validation, and the interaction between valuation, liquidity management, and investor protection for funds holding such assets. Although the specific 2026 feedback report text is not yet available, it clearly follows and deepens the CSSF’s 2023 Feedback Report on ESMA’s CSA on Valuation and its 2026 supervisory priorities on valuation, with a narrower focus on less liquid and illiquid assets.

What Changed

Based on the prior CSSF feedback on valuation and the indicated thematic focus, compliance teams should expect the following concrete expectations to apply specifically to less liquid and illiquid...
Investment fund managers must maintain concise, centralised, and comprehensive valuation policies and procedures that explicitly cover all asset types, including less liquid and illiquid instruments,...
Valuation policies must define and justify the valuation methodologies and models used for less liquid and illiquid assets, including the hierarchy of methods, model selection criteria, and...
Firms must perform robust model governance for valuation models used on less liquid and illiquid assets, including independent model review (by staff not involved in model development), back‑testing,...
Valuation frameworks must explicitly address stressed market conditions for illiquid and thinly traded assets, including triggers for stress conditions, alternative valuation methodologies under...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis of existing valuation policies and procedures against the CSSF’s feedback on valuation, with specific attention to less liquid and illiquid assets, and document all identified weaknesses and remediation actions.
Update and formally approve valuation policies and procedures to clearly define methodologies, model hierarchies, and data source selection for less liquid and illiquid assets, including explicit provisions for stressed market conditions.
Implement or enhance a formal valuation model governance framework for illiquid asset models, including independent model validation, periodic back‑testing, documentation of assumptions, and at least annual model reviews.
Review and, where necessary, redesign organisational arrangements to ensure the operational and hierarchical independence of the valuation function from portfolio management, and adjust remuneration policies to avoid performance‑linked incentives for valuation staff.
Strengthen controls over external pricing providers and external valuers by documenting selection criteria, performing initial and ongoing due diligence, challenging methodologies, and periodically back‑testing third‑party valuations of illiquid assets.

Key Dates

18 July 2023

– CSSF publishes its Feedback Report on the ESMA Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on Valuation, setting out broad expectations for valuation frameworks, including for less liquid assets

31 December 2023 DEADLINE

– Deadline by which all IFMs managing UCITS and/or AIFs were required to complete a comprehensive assessment of their valuation frameworks and implement necessary corrective measures in line with the 2023 CSSF Feedback Report on valuation

Early 2026

– CSSF identifies valuation as an ongoing key supervisory priority for the investment fund sector in its 2026 priorities, with specific focus on IFM valuation organisation and processes

04 June 2026

– CSSF publishes the new Feedback Report on the thematic review of valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets, signalling renewed and more granular supervisory scrutiny of this area

TBD (2026–2027)

– CSSF is expected to conduct follow‑up supervisory work (off‑site reviews and on‑site inspections) to test implementation of its expectations on valuation of less liquid and illiquid assets; firms should plan remediation programmes within months rather than years

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance exposes firms to heightened risk of CSSF supervisory measures, including remediation orders, restrictions on activities, and possible enforcement actions, especially where valuation weaknesses have led or could lead to investor detriment. Given the CSSF’s explicit supervisory priority on valuation, firms with significant illiquid exposures should treat this as a high‑impact issue requiring proactive remediation and robust documentation.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerHedge FundBank

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance high

June 3rd 2026

Statistical Notice 2026/05 - Implementation of Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

The Bank of England (BoE) is implementing **Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1** for all LIVE statistical submissions relating to end‑May 2026 data, due from mid‑June 2026, replacing v1.3.0. Although reporting requirements and definitions do not change, the move to v1.3.1 is **mandatory for affected returns**, is **not backwards compatible**, and coincides with the **withdrawal of the BoE Statistical Utility tool**, making this a technology and operational‑resilience change for reporting teams.

What Changed

- Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 replaces v1.3.0 for statistical reporting under the BoE Statistics Taxonomy framework.
The new taxonomy applies to LIVE submissions of end‑May data due from mid‑June 2026, meaning firms must generate those returns using v1.3.1.
Reporting requirements and published definition documents remain unchanged, with the update limited to technical implementation changes (validation fixes, data point model changes and related...
Taxonomy v1.3.1 is not backwards compatible with v1.3.0, so XBRL instance documents created under v1.3.0 will not be valid for submission once v1.3.1 is in force.
Filing indicators are standardised across statistics reporting and now follow the format XX.XX.XX (for example, FI.01.01), requiring alignment of internal mapping and validation rules.

Suggested Considerations

Update internal reporting systems, data integration layers and XBRL engines so that all relevant BoE statistical returns are generated using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 for end‑May 2026 reporting onwards.
Review and update all XBRL instance document templates and configuration to ensure they reference the correct v1.3.1 entry points and filing indicators (XX.XX.XX format, e.g. FI.01.01).
Decommission or phase out any dependency on the BoE Statistical Utility tool, and implement an alternative XBRL generation solution (recognised software provider or internal tooling) capable of producing valid v1.3.1 files.
Conduct a detailed review of the BoE‑published change log, taxonomy package, sample files and XBRL filing manual to understand validation changes, DPM updates and implementation nuances that could cause submission failures.
Schedule and complete end‑to‑end testing in the BEEDS UAT environment (where available) and in internal test environments to validate that v1.3.1 submissions pass all technical and business validations.

Key Dates

Mid‑June 2026 DEADLINE

– First LIVE submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 become due, covering **end‑May 2026** data; firms must use v1.3.1 for these returns and v1.3.0 instance documents will no longer be valid for submission

02 June 2026 – 12 June 2026

– BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window for firms and software houses to test submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 in a non‑production environment, running in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns

Compliance Impact

The change primarily affects technical implementation and operational processes but has high compliance significance, as submissions built on v1.3.0 or using unsupported tooling will be rejected. Persistent failures or delays in BoE statistical reporting can expose firms to supervisory scrutiny, remediation demands and potential enforcement where reporting obligations are not met.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

BankFintechAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Policy medium

June 3rd 2026

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395 of 23 February 2026

amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 as regards updating the list of data necessary for the classification of prospectuses and the list of information that can be incorporated by reference into prospectuses

AI Analysis

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395 of 23 February 2026 amends the Prospectus Regulation RTS in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 to update: (i) the **data set used for ESMA classification and filing of prospectuses** and (ii) the **categories of information that may be incorporated by reference** into a prospectus. For compliance teams in Luxembourg and across the EU, this means prospectus production, filing templates, and reference documentation frameworks must be revised so that all new prospectuses and supplements meet the updated RTS data and incorporation-by-reference standards under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

What Changed

- The amending Delegated Regulation updates the list of data fields required for the classification of prospectuses under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979, impacting how issuers and their advisors...
The RTS amendment revises the list of information that can be incorporated by reference into a prospectus, narrowing or clarifying which external documents (e.g.
Prospectus classification data fields are expected to better align with current ESMA Prospectus Register needs (for example finer product type, offer type, and home/host state metadata), requiring...
The updated incorporation-by-reference list seeks to ensure that only readily accessible and reliable information may be referenced, which will affect how issuers structure cross‑references to annual...
National competent authorities, including the CSSF, will apply the revised RTS when reviewing and approving prospectuses and supplements, meaning filings that use outdated data sets or ineligible...

Suggested Considerations

Map all existing prospectus templates, checklists and workflows against the revised Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 data fields and immediately identify gaps in prospectus classification data and reference documentation.
Update internal prospectus data dictionaries and metadata schemas so that all new and updated prospectuses capture the full revised list of ESMA classification data required by the amended RTS.
Review and revise the firm’s incorporation‑by‑reference policy, including standard clauses and cross‑reference tables, to ensure only information categories permitted under the updated RTS are incorporated by reference.
Reconfigure electronic filing tools and interfaces used for submissions to the CSSF (and other NCAs) so that they generate and transmit the updated RTS data set required for classification and ESMA register purposes.
Train legal, capital markets, and product teams involved in prospectus drafting on the new RTS requirements, including examples of acceptable and non‑acceptable incorporation‑by‑reference documents.

Key Dates

14 March 2019

- Original Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 is adopted, setting the RTS on key financial information, publication and classification of prospectuses, advertisements, supplements and incorporation by reference

23 February 2026

- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395 is adopted, amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 on the list of data necessary for prospectus classification and the list of information allowed to be incorporated by reference

2 June 2026

- CSSF publishes notice of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395, signalling its relevance for Luxembourg‑supervised entities and prospectus approval processes

TBD (upon OJ publication)

- The Delegated Regulation will enter into force on the date specified in the Official Journal; in line with standard EU practice, firms should expect application from a specified date shortly after OJ publication and plan prospectus updates accordingly

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance can lead to prospectus approval delays, rejection of filings, or required resubmissions, which may disrupt issuance timetables and investor communications. Persistent or material breaches may expose firms and issuers to supervisory measures, sanctions, and reputational risk for failing to meet Prospectus Regulation standards.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement high

June 3rd 2026

ESAs publish the first report on DORA major ICT-related incidents

ESAs publish the first report on DORA major ICT-related incidents 03 June 2026 Digital Finance and Innovation Joint Committee The European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) today published their first annual overview of major ICT-related incidents in the EU financial sector based on a reporting mechanism established by the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). It shows that ICT risks are increasingly borderless and interconnected. The authorities also note that the recent evo...

AI Analysis

The ESAs (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) have published their first annual report under Article 22(2) DORA, aggregating 3,383 **major ICT‑related incidents** reported by EU financial entities and highlighting that roughly one third had a cross‑border impact. This is an early supervisory “heat map” of DORA incident reporting and sends a clear signal that competent authorities will focus on cross‑border ICT risk, third‑party/outsourcing failures and the adequacy of firms’ incident classification and reporting frameworks.

What Changed

- The ESAs have operationalised Article 22(2) DORA by issuing the first annual overview of major ICT‑related incidents, confirming that yearly ESA‑level aggregation and analysis of incident data is...
Incident reporting under DORA is now demonstrably harmonised and centralised, with major ICT‑related incidents being notified to all competent authorities involved and then aggregated by the ESAs for...
The report confirms that cross‑border incidents are prevalent (around one third of major incidents), reinforcing that the “borderless and interconnected” nature of ICT risk is a key supervisory...
System failures and external events, rather than pure cyber‑attacks, are identified as the main drivers of major incidents, placing regulatory emphasis on ICT change management, resilience of core...
The ESAs highlight third‑party and outsourcing risk as a core theme, stressing the need for robust oversight of ICT service providers and close coordination with them during incident response and...

Suggested Considerations

Review and, where necessary, recalibrate internal incident classification criteria against the DORA definition of “ICT‑related incident” and “major ICT‑related incident”, ensuring consistency with applicable RTS on classification and materiality thresholds.
Validate that your firm’s incident management and escalation processes can identify, assess and classify incidents “without undue delay” and trigger major‑incident reporting within the prescribed timelines (initial, intermediate and final reports).
Conduct a gap analysis of cross‑border incident handling, ensuring that governance, communication and coordination arrangements adequately address incidents affecting multiple Member States or shared cross‑border infrastructures.
Strengthen third‑party and outsourcing risk management by mapping critical and important functions to their supporting ICT service providers, and ensuring contracts, SLAs and incident‑response clauses support DORA reporting and cooperation obligations.
Test and, if needed, enhance incident response runbooks to ensure close coordination with ICT service providers during incident containment, remediation and recovery, including clear roles for data provision required for regulatory reporting.

Key Dates

What Changed

- Annex 1 of the Ordinance of 17 October 2018 on Measures against Myanmar (SR 946.231.157.5) has been amended by the WBF, changing the list of sanctioned persons, companies and organisations.
The SECO sanctions database SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management) has been updated to reflect the amended Myanmar sanctions list.
The amendment to the Myanmar sanctions list and corresponding SESAM data becomes legally effective at 23:00 on the date indicated in the FINMA notice.
Financial intermediaries are required to implement the prohibitions set out in the Myanmar sanctions ordinance with respect to the updated list, including blocking the assets of all listed persons,...
Financial intermediaries must report business relationships affected by the Myanmar sanctions list changes to SECO in line with the sanctions ordinance.

Suggested Considerations

Immediately screen all customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, and related parties against the updated Myanmar Annex 1 list using the current SESAM sanctions data as of the 23:00 effective time.
Freeze without delay any assets, accounts, or other economic resources held or controlled by persons, entities, or organisations newly listed under the Myanmar sanctions ordinance.
Block any new or existing transactions that would breach the prohibitions of the Myanmar sanctions ordinance in light of the updated Annex 1 list.
Submit timely reports to SECO on all business relationships and frozen assets related to persons and entities listed in the updated Myanmar sanctions list, in line with the reporting provisions of the ordinance.
Conduct additional due diligence and clarifications under Article 6 GwG where there are indications or suspicions of money laundering, terrorism financing, or sanctions breaches in connection with Myanmar-related relationships.

Key Dates

17 October 2018

- Original Ordinance on Measures against Myanmar (SR 946.231.157.5) enters into force, establishing the sanctions framework and Annex 1

01 June 2026

- WBF amends the list of sanctioned persons, companies and organisations in Annex 1 of the Myanmar sanctions ordinance

02 June 2026

- SECO publishes the updated Myanmar sanctions list and SESAM data on its website

02 June 2026, 23:00

- The Myanmar sanctions list amendment enters into force and becomes binding for Swiss financial intermediaries

Compliance Impact

The update has high sanctions and AML risk implications: failure to freeze assets, implement prohibitions, or meet SECO and MROS reporting duties can expose firms to administrative enforcement by FINMA, criminal liability under sanctions law, and significant reputational damage. Robust, time-sensitive implementation and documentation of controls around the 23:00 go‑live are essential to demonstrate effective sanctions compliance.

References

[1] finma.ch/de/news/2026/06/20260602-sr-946-231-157-5/

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

June 2nd 2026

Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V.: Bafin imposes administrative fine

On 11 May 2026, Bafin imposed an administrative fine amounting to €55,000 on Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. The reason for this fine was a breach of supervisory duties in connection with contraventions of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). In April 2025, Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. failed in two cases to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed a €55,000 administrative fine on Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. for a **breach of supervisory duties** linked to failures to submit **voting rights notifications** within the statutory deadline under sections 33 et seq. WpHG. This enforcement highlights BaFin’s expectation that investment managers and other notification‑obliged entities have robust governance, controls, and monitoring to ensure timely disclosure of threshold crossings in German listed issuers.

What Changed

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

Suggested Considerations

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

Key Dates

April 2025

- Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. fails in two cases to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period

11 May 2026

- BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €55,000 on Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. for breach of supervisory duties related to WpHG contraventions

02 June 2026

- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website, detailing the nature of the breach and the fine imposed

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with WpHG voting rights notification requirements can result in significant administrative fines (up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue for legal entities) and public enforcement notices that damage reputation and raise supervisory scrutiny. The focus on supervisory duties also increases personal and organisational accountability for deficiencies in governance and control frameworks.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankBroker Dealer

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation low

June 2nd 2026

SEC Publishes Draft Strategic Plan for Public Comment

The Securities and Exchange Commission today published a Draft Strategic Plan that focuses on returning the agency to the core mission set by Congress more than 90 years ago: protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient…

AI Analysis

The SEC has issued a **Draft Strategic Plan for public comment** that sets out three agency-wide priorities: refocusing regulation on investor protection, market efficiency, and capital formation; improving stakeholder engagement and compliance facilitation; and modernizing internal operations and technology. For compliance teams, this matters because it signals where the Commission may concentrate rulemaking, examinations, enforcement, and disclosure modernization over the planning horizon.

What Changed

- The SEC is proposing a strategic reorientation toward core statutory objectives: investor protection, fair and orderly markets, and capital formation.
The plan emphasizes clearer, fit-for-purpose rules intended to support innovation while deterring misconduct.
The SEC says it will prioritize modernizing and simplifying disclosure practices, which may affect reporting frameworks and issuer-facing compliance processes.
The draft plan highlights expanded access to private markets and new capital-raising pathways, signaling possible future changes in offering, exemptive, and disclosure regimes.
The SEC identifies digital assets and distributed ledger technologies as an area needing a “firm regulatory foundation,” indicating continued policy development for crypto-related activities.

Suggested Considerations

Submit written comments by 02 July 2026 if your firm wants to influence the SEC’s strategic priorities, especially on disclosure modernization, private markets, digital assets, or enforcement posture.
Include File Number DSP-3 on all comments and use only one submission method, because the SEC requires the file number on email subject lines and asks commenters to choose a single channel.
Review internal compliance roadmaps for likely impacts from disclosure simplification, rule retrospectives, and enforcement refocusing, and identify where current controls may become redundant or need redesign.
Assess whether your firm’s digital asset, tokenization, or distributed ledger activities may benefit from future SEC guidance or may face new framework requirements.
Monitor developments on EDGAR modernization and filing technology changes, and test whether internal reporting, tagging, or submission processes would need upgrades.

Key Dates

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation high

June 2nd 2026

Rappel de l’importance de participer aux initiatives T+1 (enquêtes et consultations publiques)

No description available.

AI Analysis

CSSF is pressing Luxembourg market participants to complete T+1 readiness surveys by **9 June 2026** and to engage with ESMA’s broader T+1 consultation work, because the EU settlement cycle moves to **T+1 on 11 October 2027** under CSDR. The publication matters because it signals that supervisors are already assessing industry preparedness and that firms must accelerate post-trade process changes, especially around allocations, confirmations, and electronic messaging.

What Changed

- CSSF is requiring market participants to complete the national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey by 9 June 2026, with responses visible only to CSSF and ESMA.
CSSF is strongly encouraging participation in the EU T+1 Industry Committee second readiness survey to support a Union-wide assessment of market preparedness.
CSSF is flagging that the transition to T+1 settlement on 11 October 2027 under CSDR will require coordinated changes across the trading and post-trading chain.
CSSF is warning that forthcoming amendments to the RTS on Settlement Discipline are expected to be endorsed by the European Commission and will further define operational requirements for the T+1...
ESMA’s revised guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols are intended to make post-trade communication faster, clearer, and more consistent across the EU.

Suggested Considerations

Complete the CSSF T+1 readiness survey before 9 June 2026 and ensure the submission accurately reflects the firm’s current operational readiness.
Participate in the EU T+1 Industry Committee second readiness survey to demonstrate engagement with the EU-wide readiness process.
Review the firm’s allocation and confirmation workflows to ensure they can operate within T+1 timeframes.
Replace any reliance on oral, manual, or non-machine-readable communications with electronic, standardised messaging channels unless a temporary technical disruption justifies an exception.
Align internal messaging standards with international messaging protocols used for post-trade communication.

Key Dates

02 June 2026

- CSSF publishes the reminder on T+1 readiness, survey participation, and ESMA’s consultation work

09 June 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline to complete the CSSF national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey

07 December 2026

- Expected application date of the revised ESMA guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols

11 October 2027

- T+1 settlement cycle becomes effective under CSDR

Compliance Impact

Non-participation in the surveys will not itself appear to be the substantive T+1 breach, but it will materially weaken supervisory visibility and may invite follow-up scrutiny from CSSF and ESMA. Firms that fail to adapt allocations, confirmations, and messaging processes risk being unprepared for the 7 December 2026 guidance phase-in and the 11 October 2027 settlement-cycle change, which could create settlement fails, operational disruption, and conduct/governance issues.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Senior Managers / Governance

All FirmsAsset ManagerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇱🇺 CSSF Consultation high

June 2nd 2026

Reminder of the importance of participating in T+1 initiatives (surveys and public consultations)

No description available.

AI Analysis

CSSF reminds Luxembourg market participants that the EU move to a **T+1 settlement cycle under CSDR on 11 October 2027** is now in execution phase and links this directly to concrete supervisory tools: mandatory-like readiness surveys, RTS on Settlement Discipline amendments, and new ESMA post‑trade communication guidelines. For compliance teams, this is a front‑to‑back operating model change: firms must demonstrate T+1 readiness to CSSF/ESMA, transition to fully electronic, standardised post‑trade communication, and align allocations/confirmations processes to tighter regulatory timelines.

What Changed

- The EU settlement cycle for in‑scope financial instruments under CSDR will shorten from T+2 to T+1 with effect from 11 October 2027, materially reducing the time to complete front‑to‑back trade,...
CSSF has launched a national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey and sets a firm completion deadline of 9 June 2026 for Luxembourg market participants, treating it as a critical supervisory...
In parallel, CSSF strongly encourages Luxembourg firms to complete the EU T+1 Industry Committee (EUIC) second readiness survey to support an EU‑wide view of T+1 readiness and potential systemic...
ESMA’s final draft amendments to the CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline will introduce additional operational requirements specifically designed to support T+1 (e.g.
ESMA has launched a consultation on updated guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations, confirmations and affirmations, explicitly aimed at facilitating the T+1...

Suggested Considerations

Identify all group entities and business lines in Luxembourg that are in scope of CSDR T+1 (trading, clearing, settlement, custody, collateral, fund dealing) and formally designate a T+1 programme owner at senior management level.
Complete the CSSF T+1 national competent authorities’ survey in full and by 9 June 2026, ensuring that responses accurately reflect current readiness, key risks, dependencies on third parties, and planned remediation milestones.
Arrange for appropriate internal review and sign‑off (e.g. by Compliance and relevant senior management) of the responses to both the CSSF survey and the EUIC second readiness survey before submission.
Participate in the EU T+1 Industry Committee second readiness survey and ensure the firm’s answers are consistent with the information provided to CSSF and with internal T+1 project documentation.
Perform a comprehensive T+1 impact assessment of front‑to‑back trade flows, covering trade execution, allocation, confirmation, affirmation, clearing, settlement, collateral movements, cash and liquidity management, and corporate actions.

Key Dates

09 June 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline for Luxembourg market participants to complete the CSSF national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey

07 December 2026

- Expected application date of revised ESMA guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols and the aligned new RTS on Settlement Discipline requirements on allocations and confirmations

11 October 2027

- Effective date for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle in the EU under CSDR

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance is high‑impact: failure to prepare for T+1, to respond adequately to supervisory surveys, or to align processes with RTS on Settlement Discipline and ESMA guidelines can lead to increased settlement fails, penalties, supervisory scrutiny, and potential enforcement action. The T+1 change also amplifies operational, liquidity, and conduct risks if firms cannot meet accelerated timelines, making early execution of remediation plans a prudential and conduct priority.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

June 2nd 2026

FAQ concerning MMFR (Updated)

Version 5

AI Analysis

The CSSF has updated its FAQ on the Money Market Funds Regulation (MMFR), making the current guidance version available as **Version 5**. This matters because CSSF FAQs are used to clarify supervisory expectations for MMFs, and firms operating or managing MMFs in Luxembourg should treat the update as a prompt to confirm that prospectus disclosures, weekly transparency information, and reporting arrangements remain aligned with current CSSF practice.

What Changed

- The CSSF has published an updated MMFR FAQ and the current public version is Version 5, indicating that supervisory clarifications have been refreshed since the prior Version 4 publication.
The FAQ continues to address key MMFR transparency topics, including maturity breakdown, credit profile disclosure, and the ability to provide some information via a website link in the prospectus.
The guidance confirms that the manager may choose the day of the week for the weekly disclosure required under article 36(2), which is operationally important for recurring disclosure controls.
The FAQ states that information on internal credit quality assessment must be provided, reinforcing the expectation that the assessment is documented and made available as required.
The FAQ clarifies that article 36(2) applies only to MMFs authorised in accordance with MMFR as at 21 July 2018, and not to MMFs benefiting from the transitional provision in article 44(1).

Suggested Considerations

Review the MMF prospectus and website disclosure architecture to ensure that maturity breakdown and credit profile information are presented in a manner consistent with the CSSF’s current FAQ interpretation.
Confirm that weekly article 36(2) disclosures are scheduled on a controlled and documented day of the week, with escalation procedures for missed or late publication.
Verify that internal credit quality assessment methodology, evidence, and sign-off are documented and available for disclosure or supervisory review.
Reassess whether each MMF in scope is subject to article 36(2) based on its authorisation status and whether any transitional article 44(1) treatment applies.
Align reporting and disclosure controls with the broader CSSF MMF framework, including recurring financial reporting expectations for CSSF-supervised MMF managers.

Key Dates

21 July 2018

- Article 36(2) transparency requirements apply to MMFs authorised under MMFR as of this date, excluding MMFs benefiting from the transitional provision in article 44(1)

28 August 2018

- CSSF first published the MMFR FAQ, establishing the supervisory clarification framework for MMF questions

18 March 2024

- The CSSF MMF page shows Version 4 of the FAQ and references updated related MMF materials, including ESMA stress test scenario guidance

05 June 2025

- The CSSF webpage shows Version 4 as updated on this date, before the current Version 5 publication

Version 5 / current publication date not stated in the provided extract

- The updated FAQ is now the current CSSF guidance version on the public webpage

Compliance Impact

The compliance impact is moderate to high because MMFR breaches can create direct transparency, reporting, and governance deficiencies in a regulated fund product. Non-compliance may lead to CSSF supervisory challenge, remediation requests, or enforcement consequences if disclosures or reporting are inconsistent with the regulator’s expectations.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundAll Firms

🇺🇸 CFTC Policy medium

June 1st 2026

CFTC Implements Technical Enhancements to Streamline Product Self-Certification Process

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CFTC has implemented a technical enhancement to its electronic Portal system that allows exchanges to submit a single set of product self‑certification documents covering multiple closely related contracts in one consolidated filing. This matters for compliance teams at CFTC‑registered exchanges because it changes the *operational* process for Part 40 product submissions, reduces duplicative documentation, and will require updates to internal procedures, templates, and controls governing self‑certifications.

What Changed

- The CFTC Portal now supports consolidated product self‑certification submissions, enabling exchanges to file a single set of certification documents that apply to multiple closely related contracts...
Exchanges are no longer required to upload multiple identical copies of supporting product certification documents when listing several closely related contracts; one shared documentation set can be...
The enhancement is framed as an administrative/technical change to the filing process; it does not alter substantive legal standards for product self‑certification under the Commodity Exchange Act or...
The CFTC has issued updated submission instructions on the Portal site specifying how to use the new consolidated filing functionality, including formatting and process guidance.
Dedicated technical and non‑technical CFTC contacts have been identified (Howard Rosen for system use; Chris Goodman for product submission process questions), signaling that the Commission expects...

Suggested Considerations

Review and obtain the updated submission instructions on the CFTC Portal and ensure legal, compliance, and operations staff understand the consolidated filing functionality and any new formatting or data‑entry requirements.
Update internal product approval and submission procedures (including Part 40 playbooks and checklists) to reflect the ability to file a single set of documents for multiple closely related contracts, and to define when consolidation is appropriate.
Revise internal documentation templates (e.g., product term sheets, legal analyses, core principle compliance memos, risk assessments) so that they can explicitly support multiple closely related contracts in a single package where relevant.
Adjust governance workflows (approvals, sign‑offs, and quality checks) so that:
Each contract included in a consolidated submission is clearly identified and traceable, and

Key Dates

20 March 2025

– Executive Order 14243 is issued, setting an administrative objective to eliminate bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency, which this CFTC enhancement is designed to support

01 June 2026

– CFTC announces and launches the Portal enhancement permitting consolidated product self‑certification submissions for multiple closely related contracts

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the updated filing process is unlikely to result in direct enforcement, but incorrect or incomplete use of consolidated submissions could delay product listings, prompt CFTC information requests, or lead to questions regarding the adequacy and completeness of self‑certification packages. Over time, persistent deficiencies in product submissions could increase regulatory scrutiny of a venue’s compliance controls and governance around new product listings.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CFTC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

Topics:

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

June 1st 2026

Identification of obliged entities that will be eligible for direct supervision by the European Authority for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AMLA)

Preparation of the new data collection exercice for the purpose of the direct supervision by AMLA – AMLA webinar of 10 June 2026 from 10 am – 12 pm CEST

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

All Firms

🇺🇸 CFTC News

June 1st 2026

CFTC Chairman Selig Announces Dr. Patrick J. Schorno as Chief Economist

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement medium

June 1st 2026

ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter

ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter 01 June 2026 ESMA newsletter The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published today the latest edition of its Spotlight on Markets newsletter , covering ESMA’s key activities and publications from April and May 2026. This edition opens with key takeaways from ESMA’s conference “A New Era for EU Capital Markets” , marking ESMA’s 15th anniversary and focusing on the ambition t...

AI Analysis

ESMA’s latest *Spotlight on Markets* newsletter (covering April–May 2026 activity) signals a coordinated push on reporting simplification, CCP resilience, EMIR 3 implementation and enhanced enforcement of corporate and digital reporting standards. For compliance teams, the newsletter is a consolidated forward‑looking risk map: it highlights where ESMA and NCAs will focus supervision and enforcement in the next cycle, especially around fund/transaction reporting, CCP crisis planning, ESEF taxonomy use and internal control functions in the funds sector.

What Changed

- ESMA is advancing the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transaction reporting, indicating upcoming changes to reporting templates, data fields and/or reporting channels under...
ESMA has launched its sixth EU‑wide stress test exercise for Central Counterparties (CCPs), expanding supervisory scrutiny of CCP risk management, default management processes and resilience to...
ESMA has published guidance on the effective use of resolution tools in CCP crisis planning, clarifying expectations for CCP resolution planning, coordination with resolution authorities and use of...
ESMA has issued reporting templates and instructions for the Active Account Requirement under EMIR 3, operationalising new obligations for counterparties and CCPs to maintain and report active...
ESMA has published a call for evidence on the structure of European equity markets, opening a policy workstream that may lead to changes in market structure, transparency, and best execution...

Suggested Considerations

Map your firm’s current EMIR, MiFIR and fund reporting obligations against ESMA’s stated objective of simplifying EU reporting frameworks and begin scenario‑planning for changes to templates, data models and validation rules.
For CCPs and clearing members, review participation in the sixth ESMA CCP stress test, ensure timely and accurate data delivery, and assess internal implications of potential stress test findings for risk management frameworks.
CCPs should compare existing recovery and resolution plans and playbooks against ESMA’s new guidance on effective use of resolution tools, updating governance, triggers, communications and coordination arrangements with resolution authorities.
Counterparties and CCPs in scope of EMIR 3 should identify products and business lines affected by the Active Account Requirement and begin implementing systems, processes and controls to populate ESMA’s reporting templates and instructions.
Investment firms active in equity markets should respond to ESMA’s call for evidence on European equity market structure where appropriate, and internally assess potential impacts on best execution, order routing, internalisation and transparency obligations.

Key Dates

2025 (completed) DEADLINE

– ESMA and NCAs conduct the 2025 Common Supervisory Action on compliance and internal audit functions of fund managers, establishing benchmarks for good and poor practices in the funds sector

2025 (completed)

– First year of enforcement of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and application of ESMA Guidelines on Enforcement of Sustainability Information for in‑scope issuers’ 2025 reporting

2025 (throughout year)

– ESMA and NCAs carry out corporate reporting enforcement across the EEA, including financial, sustainability and digital (ESEF) reporting, feeding into ESMA’s 2025 corporate reporting enforcement report

Q2 2026

– ESMA launches the sixth CCP stress test exercise, with follow‑up supervisory actions by ESMA and NCAs expected after results are analysed

Q2 2026

– ESMA publishes reporting templates and instructions for the EMIR 3 Active Account Requirement, enabling firms and CCPs to begin design and implementation work ahead of EMIR 3 go‑live

Compliance Impact

The overall impact is medium to high: while the newsletter itself does not create new binding obligations, it consolidates ESMA priorities that will drive supervisory focus and future technical standards, particularly in EMIR 3, CCP oversight, ESEF and sustainability reporting. Failure to anticipate and align with these priorities can lead to enforcement actions, remediation mandates, higher supervisory scrutiny and reputational risk once the related rules and guidance are fully applied.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing ESG

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

🇱🇺 CSSF News

June 1st 2026

Home member State (Updated)

Standard form for the notification of Home Member State

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF News

June 1st 2026

Benchmark Regulation questionnaire (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

May 29th 2026

ESMA’s annual data report shows increased quality, wider use and digital progress

ESMA’s annual data report shows increased quality, wider use and digital progress 29 May 2026 Market data The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published today its annual report on the quality and use of regulatory data . It shows that improvements in data quality and data use reinforce each other in a virtuous cycle, supporting more effective supervision and market monitoring across the EU. This year’s edition reflects an e...

AI Analysis

ESMA’s latest annual report on the **quality and use of regulatory data** confirms a material step‑up in supervisory reliance on EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD and MMFR datasets, alongside new inclusion of Prospectus and DORA ICT‑incident reporting. For compliance teams this is a clear signal that data quality is now an enforcement‑relevant topic across a broader perimeter, and that ESMA is actively moving toward **streamlined, “report once” cross‑regime reporting** and an integrated funds reporting framework, which will reshape reporting architecture and controls over the next 1–3 years.

What Changed

- ESMA confirms measurable data quality improvements across EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD and MMFR regulatory datasets, indicating that regulators now consider these data sufficiently reliable for...
ESMA highlights extensive and growing supervisory use of regulatory data by ESMA and NCAs for investor protection, financial stability, orderly markets and market integrity, increasing the...
The scope of the annual data quality and use report is expanded to include Prospectus reporting obligations, bringing prospectus‑related data formally into ESMA’s cross‑regime data quality scrutiny.
The report scope is also expanded to include ICT‑related incident reporting under the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), signaling that operational resilience incident data will be monitored...
ESMA has launched a 2025 Call for Evidence on streamlining reporting across EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR, including options to remove duplications and apply a “report once” approach, which will likely lead...

Suggested Considerations

Map all existing regulatory reporting obligations across EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD, MMFR, Prospectus and DORA ICT‑incident reporting, and document the underlying data sources, systems and ownership for each regime.
Review and enhance data quality controls for EMIR, SFTR and MiFIR reporting, including validation rules, completeness checks, reconciliations, pairing and matching processes, and governance around Unique Transaction Identifiers and counterparty data.
Perform a gap analysis of Prospectus reporting and DORA ICT‑incident reporting processes against ESMA’s emerging cross‑regime data quality expectations and ensure they are covered in the firm’s enterprise data governance framework.
Establish or update a centralised regulatory data governance framework that explicitly covers cross‑regime consistency (for example, trade and position data alignment between EMIR, SFTR and MiFIR) and defines clear accountability at senior management level.
Engage with internal IT and reporting teams to identify where a future “report once” model could be supported technically, including harmonised reference data, common identifiers and golden‑source transaction and position records.

Key Dates

2025 (exact dates TBD)

– ESMA’s Call for Evidence on streamlining reporting across EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR is scheduled, with stakeholders expected to provide input on duplication removal and “report once” options

18 June 2026

– ESMA will host a webinar to present the main findings of the annual report on the quality and use of regulatory data

Compliance Impact

Regulatory data reported under EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD, MMFR, Prospectus rules and DORA is increasingly used for day‑to‑day supervision, thematic reviews and enforcement, making poor data quality a direct source of regulatory, reputational and potentially financial sanctions risk. As ESMA and NCAs deploy more automated, risk‑based data quality tools, firms with weak controls or inconsistent cross‑regime reporting will be more visible and more likely to face targeted supervisory action.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇯🇵 JFSA News low

May 29th 2026

Publication,FSA publishes English translation of monthly magazine, Access FSA No.270

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation medium

May 29th 2026

SEC Proposes Rescission of Climate-Related Disclosure Rules

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed the rescission of overly burdensome and costly rules that require companies to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports. The Commission’s…

AI Analysis

The SEC has issued a **proposal to rescind its climate‑related disclosure rules** that currently require registrants to provide specified climate information in registration statements and Form 10‑K‑type annual reports. If finalized, this would materially reduce prescriptive federal climate disclosure obligations, but compliance teams must carefully manage the transition because existing rules remain in force until any rescission is adopted and effective, and investors, proxy advisors, and other regimes (notably EU and state-level) will still expect robust climate disclosure.

What Changed

- The SEC proposes to rescind the 2024–2025 climate‑related disclosure rules that mandated detailed climate information in Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act annual reports,...
The proposal would remove line‑item requirements for climate‑related governance and oversight by the board and management that had been added to Regulation S‑K and related forms.
The proposal would eliminate prescriptive disclosure of climate‑related risks over specified time horizons (short, medium, long term) and their impacts on strategy, business model, and outlook that...
The proposal would rescind obligations to provide certain climate‑related financial metrics in audited financial statements, including disaggregation of climate‑related impacts in footnotes, thereby...
The proposal would eliminate any mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosures that were part of the climate rules, including Scopes that were required for large filers, returning GHG...

Suggested Considerations

Maintain full compliance with the existing SEC climate‑related disclosure rules in registration statements and annual reports until a final rescission (if any) becomes effective, and do not scale back disclosures based solely on the proposal.
Prepare internal briefing materials for the board, audit committee, and senior management explaining the proposed rescission, its potential implications, and the need to maintain current disclosures in the interim.
Coordinate with legal, finance, sustainability, and investor relations teams to develop a contingency disclosure strategy that anticipates both outcomes: (i) rescission is finalized and prescriptive line items disappear, or (ii) the rule is modified or retained following comments or litigation.
Review and update risk factor, MD&A, and business section drafting guidance to ensure that material climate‑related risks and opportunities continue to be addressed under general disclosure standards even if specialized climate items are removed.
Engage external counsel and proxy‑advisory or ESG stakeholders to assess how reduced prescriptive SEC climate requirements will interact with EU, UK and state‑level climate disclosure regimes, and align internal reporting processes to meet the most stringent applicable framework.

Key Dates

TBD (est. late 2026 or later)

– Potential SEC adoption of a final rule rescinding, modifying, or replacing the climate‑related disclosure rules, subject to consideration of comments and potential legal challenges

29 May 2026

– SEC issues press release and proposing release announcing the proposed rescission of the climate‑related disclosure rules and opens the public consultation

TBD (comment deadline, est. mid‑2026) DEADLINE

– Public comment period expected to close a set number of days (typically 30–60) after publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register; the precise date will be specified in the Federal Register notice

TBD (effective date, est. 30–60 days after Federal Register publication of final rule) DEADLINE

– Effective date of any final rescission; compliance with the existing climate rules would continue to be required for reporting periods and filings before this date

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance remains significant because, until any rescission is effective, issuers are expected to meet existing climate disclosure requirements and can face enforcement, private litigation, and restatement risk for material misstatements or omissions. Even after rescission, climate‑related statements will remain subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and to scrutiny from investors, proxy advisors, and other regulators.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money Crypto & Digital Assets

🇭🇰 SFC Speech

May 29th 2026

New speech by Kelvin Wong: Keynote speech at the Hong Kong Digital Finance Summit 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Technology & Cyber Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

All Firms

🇬🇧 BoE Speech

May 29th 2026

Remaining Anchored: Monetary Policy in an unpredictable World - Speech by Andrew Bailey

Given at the Reykjavík Economic Conference 2026, Iceland

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇭🇰 SFC Guidance high

May 29th 2026

SFC issues new guidance to help securities issuers prepare for upcoming uncertificated securities market regime

No description available.

AI Analysis

The SFC’s Guidance Note clarifies issuer obligations for the upcoming USM regime and signals that preparation work must start immediately, especially amendments to articles or other terms of issue. For compliance teams, the core risk is missing the transition window: issuers must be ready for a paperless market structure on launch, and key jurisdiction issuers face a hard deadline to complete constitutional amendments by the later of the first anniversary of USM launch or their first AGM after launch.

What Changed

- The USM regime is targeted to launch on 16 November 2026, and issuers must prepare for securities to be held and transferred without paper certificates from that point onward.
Issuers will need to review and amend their terms of issue, including articles of association or equivalent constitutional documents, so they are consistent with USM requirements.
The SFC’s guidance provides key areas of focus and sample provisions to help issuers amend their constitutional documents for paperless securities issuance and transfer.
Issuers will need to complete amendments by 16 November 2027 or by the date of their first annual general meeting after USM launch, whichever is later.
Upon implementation of USM, issuers must have an approved securities registrar at all times.

Suggested Considerations

Issuers must review their articles of association, bylaws, and terms of issue immediately to identify provisions that conflict with uncertificated issuance, electronic transfer, or register-based title evidence.
Issuers must begin the constitutional amendment process now so shareholder approvals, board resolutions, and any jurisdiction-specific filings can be completed before the applicable deadline.
Issuers must confirm their ability to appoint and maintain an approved securities registrar at all times once USM is implemented.
Issuers must assess their registrar, transfer, and corporate action workflows to ensure they can operate in a paperless environment from launch.
Issuers must coordinate with legal advisers and share registrars to map the transition timetable and identify any issues that could delay implementation.

Key Dates

06 May 2026

- A commencement notice to bring the USM-related legislation into effect was tabled before the Legislative Council for negative vetting

16 November 2026 DEADLINE

- The USM regime is targeted for launch, and issuers must be operationally ready for uncertificated securities market participation

16 November 2027 DEADLINE

- Deadline by which issuers must complete amendments to their terms of issue, unless their first annual general meeting after USM launch occurs later

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance is likely to be significant because USM readiness is tied to the issuer’s ability to issue, evidence, and transfer securities lawfully in the new market structure, and failure to comply could disrupt listing status, corporate actions, and investor dealings. The requirement to maintain an approved securities registrar continuously makes this a core operating-control issue, not just a one-time documentation update.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SFC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

🇭🇰 SFC Speech

May 29th 2026

New speech by Kelvin Wong: Keynote speech at HKU Corporate’s Going Global Forum

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇬🇧 FCA News

May 28th 2026

Firms have improved but must do more to prevent sanctions breaches

Financial firms have made progress in preventing sanctions breaches – with £37bn worth of assets frozen in the UK as of last year – but gaps remain, warns the FCA. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) and the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI) implement financial and trade sanctions. The FCA supports them through its role supervising firms within the financial services sector. This includes checking they have adequate sanctions systems and controls.Since Februa...

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇬🇧 PRA Policy high

May 28th 2026

PS15/26 – Pillar 2A review – Phase 1

Policy statement 15/26

AI Analysis

PS15/26 sets out the PRA’s final Phase 1 reforms to **Pillar 2A capital methodologies and reporting**, aligned with the UK’s Basel 3.1 implementation and intended to modernise how risks beyond Pillar 1 are captured. It introduces revised approaches and expectations across credit, operational, pension obligation, market and counterparty credit risk, plus substantial updates to ICAAP/SREP guidance and Pillar 2 reporting for both mainstream firms and SDDTs.

What Changed

- The PRA finalises amendments to the Reporting Pillar 2 Part of the PRA Rulebook, including updated Pillar 2 data items (FSA072–FSA076 and FSA081) and an updated Pillar 2 reporting schedule, with...
The PRA issues an updated Statement of Policy (SoP) 5/15 – The PRA’s methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital, providing revised methodologies across credit, operational, pension obligation, market...
The PRA issues an updated SoP 5/25 – The PRA’s methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs), tailoring Pillar 2A approaches and expectations for SDDTs.
The PRA updates Supervisory Statement (SS) 31/15 – ICAAP and SREP, clarifying expectations on how firms should assess, document and justify Pillar 2A capital in ICAAPs, including how to reflect...
The PRA updates SS 4/25 – ICAAP and SREP for SDDTs, setting proportionate ICAAP expectations and aligning SDDT guidance with the revised Pillar 2A framework.

Suggested Considerations

Map your firm’s current Pillar 2A capital framework against the updated SoP 5/15 and, where applicable, SoP 5/25 to identify methodology changes across credit, operational, pension, market and counterparty credit risk.
Update ICAAP methodologies, models and documentation to reflect revised PRA expectations, including new or enhanced use of credit risk and operational risk scenarios and any updated calibration standards.
Review and, where necessary, redesign ICAAP governance (board oversight, senior management ownership, model risk and validation frameworks) to ensure that new scenario‑driven and systematic Pillar 2A methodologies are subject to appropriate challenge and approval.
For firms with material sovereign, central bank, regional government or unconditionally cancellable retail exposures, implement the new systematic Pillar 2A credit risk methodologies and assess the impact on capital requirements and risk‑weighted exposure allocation.
For firms with significant operational risk, enhance scenario analysis frameworks to capture low‑frequency, high‑severity loss events at the PRA’s expected soundness level, and embed these outputs into ICAAP capital quantification.

Key Dates

22 May 2025

– PRA published CP12/25 launching Phase 1 of the Pillar 2A review and consulting on revised methodologies and reporting

05 September 2025

Policy statement 14/26

AI Analysis

PRA Policy Statement PS14/26 finalises the restatement of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary, with consequential amendments across other Rulebook Parts and updates to SS15/13 on groups. For compliance teams, the key issue is transition planning: the remaining CRR definitions are being moved out of the CRR framework, and firms must ensure their policies, capital documentation, systems, and references align with the PRA Rulebook versions before the repeal of CRR Articles 4–5 takes effect on 1 January 2027.

What Changed

- The PRA has finalised new and restated PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions that replace the CRR definitions previously found in Articles 4, 4A, 4B and 5 for PRA Rulebook purposes.
The PRA has made consequential amendments across other Parts of the PRA Rulebook to align internal cross-references and terminology with the new glossary structure.
The PRA has updated Supervisory Statement SS15/13 – Groups to reflect the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook framework.
The PRA has stated that the vast majority of definitions are restated without substantive policy change, but some definitions were clarified for drafting consistency and readability.
HM Treasury has set the legislative timetable so that the relevant CRR Articles 4–5 will be revoked from 1 January 2027, while the statutory restatement of selected definitions was made in April 2026.

Suggested Considerations

Review all internal policies, manuals, and regulatory interpretation documents that currently cite CRR Articles 4, 4A, 4B, or 5 and replace those references with the corresponding PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions.
Update capital adequacy, prudential reporting, and risk management systems to use the new PRA Rulebook terminology where definitions have moved from the CRR text.
Reconcile group supervision materials, governance papers, and consolidation analyses against the revised SS15/13 wording to ensure group structures are assessed using the updated definitions.
Map every affected business line and legal entity to determine which Rulebook Parts and counterparties rely on the transferred CRR definitions.
Test template agreements, customer disclosures, and internal controls for terminology drift where contractual drafting depends on CRR-defined concepts.

Key Dates

July 2025

- HM Treasury published its Policy Update on applying the FSMA model of regulation to the UK CRR and proposed revoking the remaining CRR provisions while restating only necessary definitions

July 2025

- PRA published CP19/25 proposing the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary and consequential amendments across the Rulebook

January 2026

- PRA published earlier final policy work on CRR restatement and related implementation measures, indicating the wider restatement programme was already underway

February 2026

- HM Treasury published a policy update confirming it would proceed largely as consulted on, with a change to the statutory definition of “securitisation” for consistency with PRA Basel 3.1 rules

February 2026

- The commencement statutory instrument revoking CRR Articles 4–5 was made, with effect from 1 January 2027

Compliance Impact

The compliance impact is moderate to high because this is a definitional restatement rather than a wholesale policy rewrite, but it affects the legal basis of many prudential references and could create misstatement risk if firms continue to rely on revoked CRR text after 1 January 2027. Non-compliance may lead to inaccurate capital, governance, or perimeter analysis, and could trigger supervisory findings where firms have not updated systems, documentation, or controls to the new Rulebook structure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation high

May 26th 2026

ESMA consults on revised guidelines to support smoother allocations and confirmations under T+1

ESMA consults on revised guidelines to support smoother allocations and confirmations under T+1 26 May 2026 Post Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has launched a consultation on the updated guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols. This review is part of ESMA’s work to support market participants in preparing for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle. The updates are designed to make post ...

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched a consultation on **revised ESMA Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations and confirmations**, aligning them with the forthcoming CSDR Settlement Discipline RTS amendments and the EU’s move to **T+1 settlement by 11 October 2027**. The draft guidelines harden expectations around **mandatory electronic, standardised, machine‑readable communication** for post‑trade processes and remove reliance on manual or non‑machine‑readable methods, significantly tightening operational requirements for EU trading, post‑trade and operations functions.

What Changed

- ESMA proposes revised Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations and confirmations under CSDR Settlement Discipline, specifically to support the transition to a...
The guidelines will mandate the use of electronic, standardised communication channels for post‑trade allocations and confirmations, moving away from mixed paper / manual practice to fully electronic...
Firms will be required to use international messaging standards (e.g. ISO‑based protocols) for post‑trade communication, to ensure interoperability and faster straight‑through processing across EU...
The guidelines remove references to non‑electronic and non‑machine‑readable methods, including oral allocations and confirmations, except where there is a temporary technical disruption that prevents...
The revisions are explicitly aligned with ESMA’s Final Report on Amendments to the CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline, which introduce same‑day timing for allocations and machine‑readable formats for...

Suggested Considerations

Map all current allocation and confirmation workflows and identify any use of non‑electronic, non‑standardised or non‑machine‑readable communication (including email attachments, faxes, PDFs, and oral instructions).
Develop and execute a remediation plan to replace manual or oral allocation and confirmation processes with fully electronic, machine‑readable workflows using recognised international messaging standards.
Review and update front‑to‑back trade processing systems (OMS, EMS, middle‑office, back‑office, matching engines) to ensure they can generate, receive and process standardised electronic allocation and confirmation messages within same‑day T+1‑compatible timelines.
Engage with CSDs, custodians, brokers, counterparties and third‑party vendors to confirm their roadmap and readiness for the mandated electronic standards and to align implementation timelines to the 7 December 2026 application date.
Update contractual documentation with clients and counterparties (including terms of business and service level agreements) to incorporate obligations for electronic, standardised, machine‑readable allocations and confirmations and to remove reliance on manual methods except as contingency.

Key Dates

07 July 2026 DEADLINE

– Deadline stated by ESMA for stakeholders to submit consultation feedback on the revised guidelines

October 2026

– ESMA expects to publish its final report, including updated and finalised guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols

07 December 2026

– Expected application date of the revised ESMA Guidelines on allocations and confirmations, aligned with the anticipated application of the amended CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline requirements for allocations and confirmations

11 October 2027 DEADLINE

– EU transition date to a T+1 settlement cycle, when trades in in‑scope instruments must settle one business day after the trade date and firms must fully operate under the new T+1‑aligned post‑trade framework

Compliance Impact

The change is high impact for operational and conduct compliance: failure to implement mandatory electronic, standardised post‑trade communication and to meet compressed T+1 timelines will directly increase settlement fails, trigger CSDR Settlement Discipline measures and may expose firms to supervisory findings, sanctions and client detriment. Given the hard deadlines and dependency on technology and counterparties, non‑compliance risks crystallising as both regulatory breaches and material operational risk.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇯🇵 JFSA News

May 26th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.688 May 26, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure ESG Authorisation & Licensing

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF News

May 26th 2026

Basic statistical data on UCIs – April 2026 (only in French)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance high

May 26th 2026

Statistical Notice 2026/04 - BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) Environment – Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

The Bank of England has opened a new BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window (02–12 June 2026) to allow statistical reporting firms and software houses to test submissions under the Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 ahead of go‑live for end‑May 2026 data due from mid‑June 2026. This matters for compliance teams because firms must ensure their reporting systems can generate valid XBRL submissions without the Bank’s Statistical Utility Tool, segregate test and live data correctly, and meet reporting deadlines using the updated taxonomy and BEEDS processes.

What Changed

- The Bank of England has opened a BEEDS UAT environment specifically for testing statistical submissions under Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL, distinct from the BEEDS LIVE production environment.
A dedicated UAT window is set from 02 June to 12 June 2026, during which the UAT environment will run in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns.
Statistical reporting firms are automatically enabled for BEEDS UAT using their existing BEEDS LIVE firm and user information and do not need to request UAT access.
Software houses that wish to use this UAT window must request access by emailing the BEEDS queries mailbox by a stated cut‑off date (25 May 2026).
All principal and additional user details for firms will be mirrored from the BEEDS LIVE environment into BEEDS UAT, with UAT‑specific temporary passwords issued from the designated BEEDS UAT email...

Suggested Considerations

Identify all Bank of England statistical returns in scope of Taxonomy v1.3.1 and confirm that internal reporting calendars and responsibilities reflect the end‑May 2026 effective period and mid‑June 2026 submission deadlines.
Ensure that all in‑scope statistical reporting firms’ BEEDS LIVE user and firm information are accurate and up to date, so that automatic mirroring into the BEEDS UAT environment creates correct and controlled user profiles.
Instruct software houses and third‑party vendors supporting Bank of England statistical reporting to request BEEDS UAT access by emailing the BEEDS queries mailbox no later than 25 May 2026 if they intend to participate in this UAT window.
Coordinate with internal IT and vendors to schedule, prepare, and execute test submissions in BEEDS UAT between 02 June and 12 June 2026, covering all relevant entry points and reporting scenarios under Taxonomy v1.3.1.
Implement or validate an alternative XBRL generation solution to replace the withdrawn Bank of England Statistical Utility Tool, and complete end‑to‑end testing (source data to BEEDS receipt) ahead of the mid‑June 2026 live submission deadline.

Key Dates

End May 2026

– Reference date of the first LIVE reporting period to which Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 applies (end‑May 2026 data)

25 May 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇸🇬 MAS News

May 25th 2026

Consumer Price Developments in April 2026

This April 2026 report contains an update of the latest consumer price developments in Singapore, prepared by MAS and the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇯🇵 JFSA Speech

May 22nd 2026

Others,Updated:Speeches (Vice Minister for International Affairs)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure ESG Authorisation & Licensing

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

May 22nd 2026

Repeal of Circular IML 91/75

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF has formally repealed Circular IML 91/75 with immediate effect through the publication of Circular CSSF 26/912 on 22 May 2026. Compliance teams for Luxembourg UCIs and related structures must now ensure that no policies, procedures or prospectus provisions continue to rely on or reference IML 91/75, and instead rely on the current UCI, SIF, SICAR and EU fund law framework and subsequent CSSF circulars and administrative practice.

What Changed

- Circular IML 91/75, which set out rules for Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment, is repealed in full with effect from 22 May 2026...
All amendments to Circular IML 91/75 introduced by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901 are implicitly repealed as part of the repeal of IML 91/75 itself.
The regulatory expectations previously contained in IML 91/75 are now either superseded by later Luxembourg fund laws (including post‑1988 UCI legislation and regimes for SICARs and SIFs), later CSSF...
The historical link to the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment is effectively severed at circular level, confirming that the operative framework is now the modern suite of...
IML 91/75 is flagged as archived by the CSSF as of 22 May 2026, clarifying that it has no continuing normative or interpretative value as a live supervisory instrument.

Suggested Considerations

Identify and inventory all internal and external documents (including policies, procedures, compliance manuals, prospectuses, offering documents, service agreements and SLAs) that reference Circular IML 91/75 or its amending Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901.
Remove or replace all references to Circular IML 91/75 and its amending circulars in compliance frameworks, manuals, registers of applicable rules and control libraries, ensuring they are mapped instead to the current applicable UCI, SIF, SICAR, AIFM and relevant CSSF circulars.
Perform a gap analysis to confirm that all substantive topics previously governed by IML 91/75 in your framework are now fully covered by current Luxembourg laws, EU fund regulations and up‑to‑date CSSF circulars and FAQs.
Update training materials and onboarding content for compliance, portfolio management, risk and operations staff to reflect that IML 91/75 has been repealed and to direct staff to the current legal and regulatory sources governing UCIs and alternative funds.
Adjust internal audit and compliance monitoring programs so that any test steps or key controls referencing IML 91/75 are updated to reference the applicable current provisions and CSSF administrative practice.

Key Dates

21 January 1991

- Original Circular IML 91/75 entered into force, setting rules for undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment

22 May 2026

- Circular CSSF 26/912 is published and takes effect, repealing Circular IML 91/75 (as amended) with immediate effect and archiving it from the same date

Compliance Impact

The immediate compliance risk is moderate: there are no new obligations, but relying on a repealed circular can create legal uncertainty, documentation inconsistencies and supervisory challenges during CSSF inspections. Failure to update frameworks may weaken control design, lead to outdated disclosures and reduce credibility with the CSSF in the event of reviews or thematic inspections.

References

[1] cssf.lu/en/2026/05/repeal-of-circular-iml-91-75/

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundBank

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

May 22nd 2026

Circular CSSF 26/912

Repeal of Circular IML 91/75 related to the revision and remodelling of the rules to which Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment (“UCI”) are subject

AI Analysis

The CSSF has issued Circular CSSF 26/912, formally repealing Circular IML 91/75 (and its amendments) governing Luxembourg UCIs under the (now repealed) Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment. This is a technical clean‑up measure that removes an obsolete circular from the rulebook and confirms that the 1991 governance, organisational and investment rules under IML 91/75 no longer apply.

What Changed

- Circular IML 91/75, including its amendments by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901, is formally repealed by Circular CSSF 26/912.
The rules on “revision and remodelling of the rules to which Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment are subject” no longer form part of...
Supervisory expectations for Luxembourg UCIs are now to be derived exclusively from the current UCI regime (notably the Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment and...
Any internal compliance mappings, policy references, or control frameworks that still cite Circular IML 91/75 or its amending circulars must be treated as referencing repealed guidance and should be...

Suggested Considerations

Update your regulatory inventory and obligation registers to reflect that Circular IML 91/75 and its amending circulars (CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901) have been repealed by Circular CSSF 26/912 as of 22 May 2026.
Verify that your compliance monitoring programmes and internal audit test plans do not rely on requirements sourced from Circular IML 91/75, and re-align any such tests to the currently applicable legal and regulatory standards.
Communicate the repeal of Circular IML 91/75 internally to legal, compliance, risk, product, and fund administration teams to prevent continued reliance on obsolete rules in ongoing or future projects.
For any ongoing remediation, authorisation or approval processes that previously cited IML 91/75 as justification for a control design, reassess and document those controls against the current CSSF requirements that have effectively replaced or superseded the 1991 framework.
Maintain an audit trail evidencing the update of documentation and registers in response to Circular CSSF 26/912, including board or senior management notification where your governance framework requires it for changes in regulatory obligations.

Key Dates

BankBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇫🇷 AMF News high

May 21st 2026

The AMF complies with ESMA’s guidelines on updating the stress scenario parameters provided for in Article 28 of the Money Market Funds Regulation for 2026

MMF Asset management The AMF complies with ESMA’s guidelines on updating the stress scenario parameters provided for in Article 28 of the Money Market Funds Regulation for 2026

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Asset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇱🇺 CSSF News

May 21st 2026

CSSF Newsletter No 304 – May 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇳🇱 AFM News

May 21st 2026

Ontwikkelingen in de pensioensector - Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026

Vooral jongeren blijven achter bij het maken van beleggingskeuzes. Terwijl zij juist nog een lange beleggingshorizon hebben. Dat schrijft de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in haar rapport ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’, gebaseerd op data van pensioenuitvoerders over 2024. Dit jaar bevat het rapport ook inzichten uit de klachtenrapportage die pensioenfondsen en premiepensioeninstellingen (PPI’s) indienen.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

InsuranceAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA Policy high

May 21st 2026

PS13/26 – Insurance third-country branches: policy implementation and other updates

Policy statement 13/26

AI Analysis

The PRA’s Policy Statement PS13/26 finalises the CP20/25 proposals on UK branches of third‑country (re)insurers, including raising the subsidiarisation threshold, embedding existing reporting and investment waivers into the Rulebook, and updating supervisory expectations on ORSA and resolution. Compliance teams at third‑country branches must now recalibrate threshold monitoring, overhaul reporting processes, and update governance and documentation to align with the revised Third Country Branches and Reporting Parts of the PRA Rulebook, updated SSs, and new Statements of Policy. ---

What Changed

- The PRA confirms an increase in the third‑country branch subsidiarisation threshold for liabilities covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) from £500 million to £600 million,...
Third‑country branch undertakings are now explicitly required to notify the PRA where projections show their FSCS‑covered liabilities may exceed the £600 million subsidiarisation threshold within a...
The PRA embeds in the Rulebook new quantitative thresholds for regulatory reporting, replacing the existing modification by consent (MbC) under Solvency II Reporting 2.2(1) for third‑country...
Under the new regime, only branches (excluding pure reinsurance branches) with at least £1 billion gross written premiums or £2 billion in branch provisions (based on the prior year’s annual...
The PRA discontinues quarterly reporting for certain non‑life claims templates and reinstates two annual reporting templates (IR.19.01.01 – non‑life insurance claims and IR.20.01.01 – development of...

Suggested Considerations

Assess current and projected FSCS‑covered UK branch liabilities against the new £600 million subsidiarisation threshold and implement or update a robust three‑year forecasting process to identify potential threshold breaches.
Update internal PRA notification procedures and early‑warning triggers so that the branch informs the PRA promptly if forecasts show FSCS‑covered liabilities could exceed the £600 million threshold within three years.
For branches approaching or exceeding the new threshold, initiate or refresh internal structural options analysis (branch vs subsidiary), including timeline, capital, governance, and operational impacts, and prepare for early engagement with the PRA on subsidiarisation expectations.
Map gross written premiums and branch provisions against the new £1 billion GWP and £2 billion provisions reporting thresholds and determine whether the branch will be subject to the full or reduced suite of third‑country branch regulatory reporting templates from 31 December 2026.
Redesign regulatory reporting processes, systems, and controls to align with the new reporting perimeter, including identifying which templates will be required, adjusting data capture, and ensuring capacity to produce reinstated templates IR.19.01.01 and IR.20.01.01 on an annual basis.

Key Dates

16 September 2025

– PRA publishes CP20/25, proposing changes to third‑country branch policy, including the higher subsidiarisation threshold and new reporting thresholds

16 December 2025

– Consultation period for CP20/25 closes; representations received from affected firms and stakeholders

Q1–Q2 2026

– PRA indicates that the increase in subsidiarisation threshold from £500 million to £600 million would take effect on publication of the relevant policy statement (PS13/26), with immediate relevance for threshold monitoring and branch vs subsidiary planning

31 December 2026

– Rulebook and policy changes (including amendments to the Third Country Branches and Reporting Parts, reinstatement of annual templates IR.19.01.01 and IR.20.01.01, embedded reporting thresholds, embedded pure reinsurance relief, updates to SS44/15, SS41/15, SS19/16, SoP6/24, SoP7/24, and SoP1/19, and disapplication/restatement of EIOPA Branch Guidelines) are scheduled to come into force

Compliance Impact

The impact is material for all UK branches of third‑country (re)insurers, particularly those near the new subsidiarisation and reporting thresholds, with consequences including potential forced subsidiarisation, expanded reporting burdens, or supervisory challenge if expectations on forecasting, ORSA, or resolution planning are not met. Non‑compliance could trigger PRA supervisory interventions, restrictions on business, and increased scrutiny during authorisation and ongoing supervision.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

InsuranceBank

Banking & Credit Crypto & Digital Assets Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇺 ASIC News

May 21st 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Bank

Banking & Credit Crypto & Digital Assets Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇦 OSFI News

May 21st 2026

Remarks for OSFI’s Quarterly Release Day

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Bank

🇨🇦 OSFI Consultation medium

May 21st 2026

Backgrounder: Draft Guideline B-12 Interest Rate Risk Management Consultation

AI Analysis

OSFI has launched a 60‑day public consultation on targeted amendments to Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management, to update interest rate shock scenarios in line with the latest Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) standards. Compliance teams at federally regulated deposit‑taking institutions must prepare for recalibrated interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB) measurements and associated Pillar 3 disclosure changes that will become effective for fiscal years starting late 2026.

What Changed

- OSFI proposes to amend Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management to update prescribed interest rate shock scenarios used for measuring interest rate risk in the banking book.
The interest rate shock calibration will be aligned with the most recent BCBS methodology for IRRBB, including improved treatment of environments where policy rates are close to zero or negative.
The time series used to calibrate interest rate shock scenarios will be extended from a previous cut‑off of December 2015 to now incorporate data through December 2023, capturing the recent period of...
OSFI intends to strengthen transparency and market discipline by consulting simultaneously on proposed amendments to Pillar 3 disclosure expectations related to interest rate risk in the banking book.
The revised B‑12 guideline will introduce updated expectations for IRR measurement, monitoring, and reporting that ensure institutions recognize more recent market experience in their internal risk...

Suggested Considerations

Perform a gap analysis comparing current interest rate risk in the banking book methodologies, shock scenarios, and assumptions against the proposed revised Guideline B‑12 parameters and BCBS‑aligned calibration approach.
Engage internal stakeholders (risk management, treasury/ALM, finance, regulatory reporting, model validation, and internal audit) to review the consultation text and identify operational, data, and model impacts from the extended December 2015–December 2023 calibration window and new shock design.
Prepare and submit a detailed written response to OSFI at Consultations@osfi-bsif.gc.ca by 20 July 2026, highlighting any concerns with scenario calibration, procyclicality, data availability, systems impacts, and implementation timelines.
Update IRRBB models, interest rate scenario engines, behavioral assumptions (e.g., non‑maturity deposits, prepayments), and risk metrics (e.g., economic value of equity and earnings‑at‑risk) to incorporate the revised OSFI shock scenarios once the final guideline is published on 10 September 2026.
Revise internal IRRBB policies, risk appetite statements, limits frameworks, and governance documentation to align with the updated Guideline B‑12 expectations and ensure Board and senior management oversight reflects the new calibration.

Key Dates

21 May 2026

- OSFI launches a 60‑day public consultation on targeted amendments to Guideline B‑12 – Interest Rate Risk Management and related IRRBB Pillar 3 disclosure expectations

20 July 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments on the draft Guideline B‑12 amendments and associated IRRBB disclosure proposals to Consultations@osfi-bsif.gc.ca

10 September 2026

- OSFI plans to publish the final revised Guideline B‑12, together with a non‑attributed summary of comments received and OSFI’s responses

01 November 2026

- Revised Guideline B‑12 becomes effective for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 October

01 January 2027

- Revised Guideline B‑12 becomes effective for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 December

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the revised Guideline B‑12 and associated IRRBB disclosure expectations may result in supervisory findings, remediation orders, heightened capital expectations, and potential reputational damage due to incomplete or misleading interest rate risk reporting. Given recent rate volatility and OSFI’s focus on IRRBB, supervisors are likely to treat deficiencies in implementation or disclosure as material.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original OSFI source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇨🇦 OSFI Guidance medium

May 21st 2026

Backgrounder: Draft Guideline B‑2 – Large Exposure Limits for Small and Medium-Sized Banks

AI Analysis

OSFI has launched a 90‑day consultation (to 19 August 2026) on a draft revised Guideline B‑2 that would extend the 2019 large exposure regime to Category 1 and Category 2 small and medium‑sized banks (SMSBs), replacing the legacy 1994 large exposure guideline for those firms. Compliance teams in affected SMSBs will need to align limits, exposure measurement, counterparty‑grouping methodologies, and reporting processes with the DSIB‑style framework ahead of implementation targeted for November 2027 / January 2028.

What Changed

- Extends the scope of Guideline B‑2 (Large Exposure Limits) beyond domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs) to include Category 1 and Category 2 small and medium‑sized banks (SMSBs), bringing...
Replaces the existing 1994 large exposure guideline for Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs with a single modern framework aligned to the January 2019 version of Guideline B‑2.
Removes Category 3 SMSBs from the large exposure guideline regime, so they will no longer be subject to OSFI large exposure limits under Guideline B‑2.
Removes foreign bank branches from the scope of the large exposure guideline, so foreign bank branches will no longer be subject to Guideline B‑2 requirements.
Introduces a hard limit for Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs that total exposures to a single counterparty or group of connected counterparties must not exceed 25% of the institution’s Tier 1 capital.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct an impact assessment to quantify current single‑name and connected‑counterparty exposures relative to the proposed 25% of Tier 1 capital limit for Category 1 and Category 2 SMSBs.
Identify and map all existing large exposure policies, procedures, and limits that are based on the 1994 large exposure guideline and plan their replacement with a framework aligned to the 2019 Guideline B‑2 approach.
Review and, where necessary, redesign methodologies and internal criteria for identifying groups of connected counterparties so they are consistent with OSFI’s updated expectations under the draft revised Guideline B‑2.
Update credit risk measurement processes and systems so that exposures for large exposure purposes are calculated net of eligible credit risk mitigation in line with OSFI capital requirements.
Assess data, systems, and reporting capabilities to ensure the institution can produce quarterly large exposure reports using the same template as larger banks, including drill‑downs by counterparty and connected counterparty groups.

Key Dates

21 May 2026

- OSFI launches a 90‑day public consultation on the draft revised Guideline B‑2 – Large Exposure Limits for small and medium‑sized banks

19 August 2026 DEADLINE

- Consultation period closes; this is the deadline for stakeholders to submit comments to OSFI on the draft Guideline B‑2

February 2027

- OSFI expects to publish the final revised Guideline B‑2 following review of consultation feedback

01 November 2027

- Planned implementation date of the final Guideline B‑2 for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 October

01 January 2028

- Planned implementation date of the final Guideline B‑2 for institutions with a fiscal year ending 31 December

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with the final Guideline B‑2 could lead to supervisory findings, mandated remediation, constraints on business growth, and potential capital add‑ons if OSFI assesses concentration risk as inadequately managed. Severe or persistent breaches of large exposure limits could be treated as a material prudential weakness, with implications for recovery planning, supervisory ratings, and, in extreme cases, enforcement action.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original OSFI source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇳🇱 AFM News

May 20th 2026

Oproep om twee T+1-gereedheidsenquêtes in te vullen

Vanaf 11 oktober 2027 verkort de afwikkelingscyclus voor effectentransacties van T+2 naar T+1. Dit vraagt om aanpassingen in systemen en processen in de hele kapitaalmarktketen. Om de voortgang te monitoren, roept de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) marktpartijen op om twee T+1-gereedheidsenquêtes in te vullen. Het invullen van beide enquêtes kan uiterlijk tot 9 juni 2026. De uitkomsten geven inzicht in de voorbereiding van de sector en maken duidelijk waar extra aandacht nodig is voor T+1.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇨🇦 OSFI News

May 20th 2026

OSFI’s second Quarterly Release Day of 2026 – Technical Briefing

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇸🇬 MAS Speech

May 20th 2026

"Financing Asia’s Transition - From Risk to Readiness: Preparing for a Climate-Resilient Future" - Opening Address by Mr Chee Hong Tat, Minister for National Development, and Deputy Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, at the Financing Asia’s Transition Conference on 20 May 2026

Opening Address by Mr Chee Hong Tat, Minister for National Development, and Deputy Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, at the Financing Asia’s Transition Conference on 20 May 2026.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Crypto & Digital Assets

🇺🇸 CFTC Enforcement high

May 19th 2026

CFTC Staff Issues Advisory on Cooperation in Enforcement Matters

No description available.

AI Analysis

On 19 May 2026, the CFTC Division of Enforcement issued a new cooperation advisory that supersedes all prior CFTC cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and policies. For compliance teams, this resets the playbook for how voluntary self‑reporting, cooperation, remediation, and restitution/disgorgement are assessed for mitigation credit, including a clarified path to potential declinations where specific conditions are met.

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

19 May 2026

- CFTC Division of Enforcement issues the new cooperation advisory, which supersedes all prior cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and becomes the operative policy for ongoing and future enforcement matters

Compliance Impact

The impact is high: the advisory reshapes incentives around self‑reporting and cooperation and directly affects whether firms can obtain declinations or material penalty reductions in CFTC enforcement actions. Failure to align investigation, remediation, and reporting practices with the new framework may result in higher civil monetary penalties, loss of declination eligibility, and more intrusive enforcement scrutiny.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CFTC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇯🇵 JFSA News

May 19th 2026

Press Conferences,Joint Press Conference of the ASEAN+3 Co-Chairs (May ３, 2026)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber

BankAll Firms

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation medium

May 19th 2026

SEC Proposes Transformative Reforms to Help Public Companies Conduct Registered Offerings and Simplify Reporting Requirements

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed amendments to its rules and forms governing registered offerings that are designed to increase efficiency, flexibility, and cost savings for public companies while maintaining robust investor…

AI Analysis

The SEC has issued a proposing release, “SEC Proposes Transformative Reforms to Help Public Companies Conduct Registered Offerings and Simplify Reporting Requirements,” that would overhaul key aspects of the Securities Act of 1933 registered offering framework and associated Exchange Act reporting. The proposal is aimed at streamlining shelf registration, communications, and periodic reporting to reduce cost and friction for seasoned public companies while preserving core disclosure and liability safeguards, so issuer compliance teams will need to reassess their entire offering and disclosure playbook if the rules are adopted.

What Changed

*(Based on the SEC’s description and consistent with prior offering‑reform initiatives; specific rule and form cites will need to be confirmed against the proposing release once reviewed in full.)*
The SEC proposes to modernize the shelf registration process for Form S‑3 and F‑3 issuers, including expanded use of automatic or “universal” shelves and greater flexibility to add classes of...
The proposal would streamline incorporation by reference, allowing more categories of Exchange Act reports and exhibits to be incorporated into Securities Act registration statements and prospectuses...
The SEC proposes to expand the use of “access equals delivery” for final prospectuses, permitting issuers in additional circumstances to satisfy Securities Act Section 5(b)(2) delivery requirements...
The reforms would broaden the range of permissible communications in connection with registered offerings, including issuer and underwriter use of certain factual and forward‑looking information,...

Suggested Considerations

Monitor the Federal Register and SEC website for the full proposing release text and the precise comment deadline for this rulemaking.
Coordinate among legal, finance, and investor relations teams to prepare and submit a comment letter to the SEC addressing practical implications of the proposed offering and reporting reforms for your issuer, including any concerns about liability, operational feasibility, and investor impact.
Inventory all existing shelf registration statements (including automatic shelves), universal shelves, and continuous‑offering programs and identify where proposed changes to shelf mechanics, incorporation by reference, or prospectus updating could affect structure, timing, or disclosure.
Review current offering communication practices, including use of free writing prospectuses, roadshow materials, and research reports, and map them against the proposed expanded communications safe harbors to determine what additional flexibilities could be used in future offerings.
Assess your firm’s use of Exchange Act reports incorporated by reference into Securities Act registration statements and plan to revise drafting and review procedures to take advantage of streamlined incorporation while managing Securities Act liability for incorporated information.

Key Dates

TBD 2026

– Federal Register publication of the SEC proposing release “SEC Proposes Transformative Reforms to Help Public Companies Conduct Registered Offerings and Simplify Reporting Requirements,” starting the formal comment period

TBD 2026 DEADLINE

– End of SEC comment period (typically 30–60 days after Federal Register publication; exact deadline to be confirmed in the notice)

TBD (est. late 2026 or 2027)

– Potential adoption of final rules by the SEC, following review of comment letters

TBD (effective date)

– Final rules become effective on a date specified in the adopting release (often 30–60 days after Federal Register publication of the final rules)

TBD (compliance date / transition period) DEADLINE

– Staggered or delayed compliance dates for specific form and disclosure changes, expected to give registrants time to update registration statements, shelf programs, and periodic reporting templates

Compliance Impact

Because the proposal seeks mainly to reduce friction and modernize existing processes rather than impose new prohibitions, the risk of traditional “non‑compliance” arises primarily from failing to adapt offering and disclosure practices to the updated framework, potentially leading to inefficient capital‑raising, errors in form usage, or Securities Act liability from misapplied incorporation and communication rules. Issuers and intermediaries that do not update their procedures once rules are finalized could face increased regulatory scrutiny, offering delays, or remedial filings.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇮🇪 CBI Speech

May 19th 2026

Makhlouf calls for genuine single market in goods, services and capital to boost European competitiveness

Governor of Central Bank of Ireland Gabriel Makhlouf today (Tuesday 19 th May) spoke at the AFME Annual European Financial Integration conference , where he called for a more ambitious approach to Europe’s Single Market, arguing that greater integration in goods, services and capital is essential to enhance European competitiveness and resilience. The Governor outlined two primary conditions for building a genuine single capital market: completing the regulatory architecture and establishing ...

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

All Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇮🇪 CBI Speech

May 19th 2026

One Single Market: Goods, Services and Capital - Speech by Governor Gabriel Makhlouf at AFME European Financial Integration Conference

Thank you for the invitation to speak this afternoon. I want to talk about the Single Market, which is one of Europe's greatest political and economic achievements. Over more than three decades, it has been an engine of European growth and resilience, delivering scale, opportunity, and tangible benefits for citizens and businesses across the Union. As António Costa has pointed out, it connects 450 million consumers and 32 million companies, supporting around 56 million jobs through trade with...

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

May 19th 2026

Circular CSSF 26/911

ESMA Guidelines on stress test scenarios under Article 28 of the Money Market Fund Regulation – Update 2025 (ESMA50-481369926-30585)

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 26/911 informs Luxembourg money market fund (MMF) managers that the CSSF is integrating ESMA’s 2025 update of the stress test scenarios under Article 28 of the Money Market Fund Regulation (MMFR), and that these new ESMA Guidelines now form part of the Luxembourg supervisory expectations. The circular repeals and replaces Circular CSSF 25/877 as of 26 May 2026 and requires MMFs and their managers to apply the 2025 stress test parameters for MMF reporting from the reporting date 30 June 2026 onwards, driving immediate model, data, and reporting changes.

What Changed

- Circular CSSF 26/911 replaces Circular CSSF 25/877 and integrates ESMA’s 2025 Guidelines on stress test scenarios under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 (MMFR), making the updated scenarios...
The 2025 ESMA Guidelines (Ref. ESMA50-481369926-30585) update the common reference stress test parameters for MMFs, reflecting more recent market conditions and liquidity risk drivers than the 2024...
The circular clarifies that MMFs and MMF managers must use the updated 2025 ESMA stress test scenarios when preparing the MMF reporting required under the MMFR and the related Commission Implementing...
Circular CSSF 26/911 confirms that the 2025 Guidelines and their translations, published by ESMA on 26 March 2026, are now integrated into CSSF supervisory practice, following the ESMA process...
The circular reiterates that MMFs and their managers must tailor the ESMA reference scenarios to the specificities of each MMF, adding additional risk factors or requirements where needed to ensure...

Suggested Considerations

Identify all MMFs and MMF mandates in scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 for which the CSSF is the competent authority and confirm that they are currently using the 2024 ESMA stress test framework under Circular CSSF 25/877.
Obtain and review in detail the ESMA 2025 Guidelines on stress test scenarios (ESMA50-481369926-30585) and the annexed parameters as integrated by Circular CSSF 26/911, comparing them line‑by‑line to the 2024 version to map all methodological and parameter changes.
Update the MMF stress testing policy and procedures to reference Circular CSSF 26/911 and the 2025 ESMA Guidelines, including explicit descriptions of the scenarios, calibration choices, modelling techniques, and governance for scenario approval.
Recalibrate stress testing models and tools used for MMFs to reflect the 2025 common reference parameters, ensuring that interest rate shocks, credit spread moves, liquidity shocks, redemption scenarios, and concentration risks are aligned with the new ESMA specifications.
Perform impact analyses on representative MMFs using both 2024 and 2025 parameters to quantify changes in stress outcomes, and prepare internal briefing materials for senior management and boards explaining the impacts on liquidity and risk profiles.

Key Dates

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

All Firms

🇫🇷 AMF News

May 19th 2026

Liquidity Management Tools: the AMF intends to comply with ESMA’s Guidelines

Asset management AIFMD UCIT Regulatory developments Liquidity Management Tools: the AMF intends to comply with ESMA’s Guidelines

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement high

May 18th 2026

SEC Rescinds Policy Regarding Denials of Settlements in Enforcement Actions

The Securities and Exchange Commission today rescinded a policy, codified in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal rules of procedures, stating that when it chooses to settle an enforcement action in which a sanction is imposed, it will not settle unless the…

AI Analysis

The SEC has rescinded its long‑standing “no‑deny” settlement policy, previously codified in Rule 202.5(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, which had prohibited settling respondents from publicly denying the Commission’s allegations in cases resolved on a “neither admit nor deny” basis. This materially alters how firms can speak about resolved SEC enforcement matters and will directly affect settlement negotiations, collateral consequences analysis, and post‑settlement communications and disclosure strategies.

What Changed

- The SEC has rescinded the policy in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal Rules of Practice that conditioned settlements involving sanctions on the respondent’s agreement not to publicly deny the...
Settling parties in SEC enforcement actions may now have greater scope to make public statements that deny or contest aspects of the SEC’s allegations, subject to the specific language of each...
The traditional “neither admit nor deny” construct will no longer automatically include a built‑in prohibition on denials, which means the SEC staff will need to negotiate any desired limitations on...
Communications and disclosure provisions in SEC settlement papers (including “undertakings” and clauses governing press releases and investor communications) are likely to become more tailored and...
The rescission increases the importance of alignment between legal, compliance, and communications teams when crafting public statements following an SEC settlement, because statements that deny...

Suggested Considerations

Review existing internal playbooks for handling SEC investigations and settlements and update them to reflect the rescission of Rule 202.5(e), including how settlement language on admissions, denials, and public statements is negotiated.
For matters currently under SEC investigation or in active settlement negotiations, direct outside and in‑house counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek greater flexibility for post‑settlement denials or clarifications in the consent language and undertakings.
Conduct an inventory of significant historical SEC settlements that included “no‑deny” provisions and identify where ongoing communications plans, disclosure narratives, or litigation strategies may be constrained by legacy language.
For high‑impact historical orders with restrictive “no‑deny” clauses, obtain legal advice on whether and how to approach the SEC about potential modification or clarification of those provisions in light of the Commission’s changed policy.
Train senior management, board members, and spokespersons on the revised SEC posture, emphasising that while denials may now be more permissible, inaccurate or overly aggressive denials could adversely affect ongoing private litigation, insurance recoveries, or relationships with other regulators.

Key Dates

18 May 2026

- The SEC issues the press release announcing rescission of its “no‑deny” policy codified in Rule 202.5(e), signalling immediate policy change for new enforcement settlements

TBD

- Any subsequent SEC guidance, FAQs, or amendments to the Rules of Practice or Enforcement Manual that clarify how post‑settlement denials will be treated in future cases may be issued at a later date

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance will not typically arise from the policy rescission itself, but from making public statements that conflict with specific settlement terms, are misleading to investors, or undermine other legal obligations. Missteps in this area can trigger renewed SEC scrutiny, private securities litigation exposure, reputational damage, and potential challenges with insurers and other regulators.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News

May 18th 2026

ASIC sets financial reporting, audit and sustainability focus areas for FY 2026–27

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure ESG Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

🇦🇺 ASIC News

May 18th 2026

On 12 November 2025, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) issued an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam N.V. (Euronext) due to breach of the rules on providing access for central securities depositories (CSDs). Euronext complied with the instruction. European legislation requires trading venues to provide CSDs with access to their transaction feeds on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis. The AFM was of the opinion that a few adjustments to the settlement model that were in...

AI Analysis

AFM has issued and published an instruction against Euronext Amsterdam for breaching the **open access obligations under Article 53(1) of CSDR** by imposing restrictive conditions on CSDs’ access to its transaction feeds, linked to a new settlement model. Euronext has withdrawn the conditions and confirmed continued and new access for non‑linked CSDs, signalling that trading venues must ensure any changes to settlement models, default CSDs or connectivity rules do not directly or indirectly restrict non‑discriminatory, transparent CSD access.

What Changed

- Trading venues subject to CSDR must ensure that access for central securities depositories to transaction feeds is provided on a non‑discriminatory and transparent basis as required by Article...
Conditions or criteria attached to the designation of an alternative CSD (other than a venue’s preferred or “linked” CSD) that have the effect of limiting access to transaction feeds are treated as a...
AFM has clarified, through enforcement, that settlement model changes and associated contractual or operational conditions are within the scope of supervisory scrutiny for compliance with CSDR open...
Euronext has withdrawn three announced conditions that restricted access for certain CSDs and has confirmed continued access for CSDs with existing connectivity to its transaction feeds.
Euronext has also confirmed access for other CSDs that requested access to act as alternative CSDs, establishing a practical expectation that trading venues respond positively to reasonable access...

Suggested Considerations

Trading venues must review settlement models, CSD linkage arrangements and related policies to ensure that all conditions for CSD access to transaction feeds are non‑discriminatory, transparent, and fully aligned with Article 53(1) of CSDR.
Compliance and legal teams must identify and remove any contractual or operational provisions that directly or indirectly favour a linked or in‑house CSD over independent or alternative CSDs in terms of access to transaction feeds.
Trading venues must implement internal governance and change‑management controls to ensure that future settlement model changes, including the introduction of a preferred CSD, are subject to ex‑ante compliance review against CSDR open access obligations.
Market infrastructure firms must establish documented criteria and procedures for handling CSD access requests, ensuring these criteria are objective, transparent, and applied consistently to linked and non‑linked CSDs.
Compliance functions should conduct periodic audits of access arrangements, transaction feed connectivity, and any associated fees or technical requirements to confirm that no indirect barriers to CSD access exist.

Key Dates

12 November 2025

- AFM issues an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam for breach of CSDR Article 53(1) open access rules and sets a period for remediation

13 May 2026

- AFM publishes the instruction decision after it becomes irrevocable and confirms that Euronext has remediated by withdrawing the restrictive conditions and confirming continued and new access for CSDs

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with CSDR open access obligations can lead to formal instructions, ongoing supervisory monitoring, reputational damage through public enforcement decisions, and potentially further sanctions where breaches are not timely remediated. Given the centrality of CSD access to post‑trade infrastructure, persistent breaches may also trigger broader scrutiny of governance, conflicts of interest, and competition concerns.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AFM source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

🇦🇪 DFSA News

May 12th 2026

Sectors:

ESG Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

🇸🇬 MAS News

May 6th 2026

Written reply to Parliamentary Question on Code of Corporate Governance and SGX Listing Rules on remuneration committees and disclosures

Sectors:

Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation medium

May 5th 2026

SEC Proposes Amendments to Permit Optional Semiannual Reporting by Public Companies

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed rule and form amendments that would give public companies the option of filing semiannual reports in lieu of quarterly reports to meet their interim reporting obligations under the federal securities…

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

May 5th 2026

Failure to submit notification of own account transactions: Bafin imposes administrative fines

On 9 April 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed administrative fines totalling €90,000 on a natural person. The fines were imposed due to the person’s violation of MAR. The person in question failed to submit notifications of own account transactions.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed administrative fines totalling €90,000 on a natural person for breaching Article 19(1) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) by failing to submit notifications of own-account transactions in the issuer’s instruments within the prescribed deadline. This enforcement action underscores that German supervisors are actively monitoring directors’ dealings and will impose significant sanctions for seemingly “procedural” failures in managers’ transaction reporting, even where the underlying trading behaviour is not alleged to be abusive.

What Changed

- The publication reaffirms that persons discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMRs) and persons closely associated with them must notify both the issuer and BaFin of any own-account transactions...
BaFin clarifies that failure either to notify at all or to notify within the three-business-day deadline constitutes a breach of Article 19(1) MAR and may be sanctioned via administrative fines.
The publication reiterates BaFin’s fining powers for infringements of Article 19(1) MAR, up to €500,000 for natural persons and up to €1,000,000 for legal persons.
In the specific case reported, BaFin imposed administrative fines totalling €90,000, signalling a materially significant level of sanction for non‑submission of managers’ transaction notifications.
The background section restates that the issuer must publicly disclose the information contained in managers’ transaction notifications, emphasising the transparency function within the MAR regime.

Suggested Considerations

Review existing MAR Article 19 managers’ transaction policies and procedures to ensure they explicitly require notification to the issuer and BaFin within three business days of the transaction date.
Implement or enhance automated monitoring and reminder systems that track PDMR and closely associated persons’ trading and flag the three‑business‑day reporting deadline to both individuals and compliance teams.
Update internal guidance and PDMR onboarding materials to clarify the increased €50,000 annual reporting threshold effective 01 January 2026 and how to aggregate transactions across the calendar year.
Map and maintain a current register of all persons closely associated with each PDMR (including natural and legal persons) and ensure they are contractually or formally bound to comply with Article 19 MAR notification obligations.
Establish clear escalation procedures whereby any missed or late notification is immediately reported to compliance, assessed for regulatory breach, and, where appropriate, self‑reported to BaFin.

Key Dates

01 January 2026

- BaFin’s increased threshold for managers’ transaction notifications under Article 19 MAR (from €20,000 to €50,000 per calendar year) takes effect, impacting when own‑account transactions become reportable

09 April 2026

- BaFin imposes administrative fines totalling €90,000 on a natural person for failure to submit notifications of own‑account transactions in breach of Article 19(1) MAR

05 May 2026

- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website, making the sanction and underlying conduct publicly known for deterrence and transparency

07 May 2026

- The enforcement publication is modified/updated by BaFin (e.g. editorial adjustments), confirming the current version of the notice

Three business days after each transaction date (ongoing obligation) DEADLINE

- PDMRs and closely associated persons must notify the issuer and BaFin of own‑account transactions in the issuer’s securities or related instruments no later than three business days after the transaction

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with Article 19(1) MAR on managers’ transaction notifications can result in substantial administrative fines (up to €500,000 for natural persons and €1,000,000 for legal persons) and heightened supervisory scrutiny. Beyond financial penalties, failures in this area may trigger broader concerns about insider‑dealing controls and governance, potentially impacting an issuer’s regulatory risk profile and market reputation.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇺🇸 CFTC News

May 4th 2026

CFTC Staff Issues Supplemental Letter Regarding No-Action Position on Reporting, Recordkeeping Requirements

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇪🇺 ESMA Speech

May 4th 2026

ESMA advances the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transactions

ESMA advances the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transactions 04 May 2026 Fund Management Market data Press Releases Securities Financing Transactions Simplification and Burden Reduction The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU financial markets regulator and supervisor, has launched a harmonised approach to funds reporting and has set a clear path towards streamlined, more efficient transaction reporting across European markets. The two reports pu...

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Technology & Cyber Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

May 4th 2026

Publication of financial reports: Federal Office of Justice imposes disciplinary fine on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG

On 7 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 50.000 euros on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz – BfJ) has imposed a disciplinary fine of 50,000 euros on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG for failing to file its 2024 consolidated financial statements electronically with the operator of the German Federal Gazette (Bundesanzeiger), in breach of section 325 HGB, with the sanction based on section 335 HGB. This enforcement action underscores that German disclosure rules on publication of annual and consolidated accounts are actively enforced and that failures to file with the Bundesanzeiger can lead to material monetary sanctions and repeated measures against issuers already in scope of BaFin transparency proceedings.

What Changed

- The case confirms the continued strict enforcement by the Federal Office of Justice of section 325 HGB requirements that consolidated accounting documents be submitted to the Bundesanzeiger in...
The decision illustrates the application of section 335 HGB, including the possibility of imposing disciplinary fines of up to 50,000 euros for non-compliance with disclosure obligations relating to...
The publication reinforces that failure to submit consolidated financial statements for a given financial year (here, 2024) for disclosure purposes constitutes a breach regardless of any parallel...
The case signals that the BfJ will proceed to final sanction where the company does not appeal the disciplinary fine order, and that lack of appeal results in a binding enforcement outcome.
The enforcement adds to a pattern of repeated transparency/reporting violations by the same issuer, highlighting regulators’ willingness to sanction persistent non-compliance with both HGB corporate...

Suggested Considerations

Review and map all statutory disclosure obligations under sections 325 to 335 HGB, including deadlines and format requirements for the submission of annual and consolidated financial statements to the Bundesanzeiger.
Establish or enhance internal controls to ensure that consolidated accounting documents for each financial year are prepared, approved and submitted electronically to the Bundesanzeiger within the one-year deadline from the balance sheet date.
Implement a compliance calendar that explicitly tracks HGB disclosure deadlines alongside WpHG financial reporting and publication obligations (annual reports, half-yearly reports, and related announcements) to avoid gaps between corporate and capital markets requirements.
Assign clear responsibility to specific senior managers or functions (e.g. CFO, Head of Accounting, Company Secretary) for timely Bundesanzeiger filings and ensure these responsibilities are reflected in role descriptions and governance documentation.
Conduct a gap analysis of prior years’ disclosures to confirm that all required annual and consolidated financial statements have been properly filed with the Bundesanzeiger and publicly available; remediate any missing filings without delay.

Key Dates

18 October 2023

- BaFin imposes administrative fines totalling 331,500 euros on ZhongDe Waste Technology AG for multiple failures to publish and announce financial reports under sections 114 and 115 WpHG for financial years 2021 and 2022

Financial year 2024 (year DEADLINE

end date: company-specific); - Statutory deadline under section 325 HGB for submission of consolidated accounting documents to the Bundesanzeiger is generally no later than one year after the balance sheet date of the financial year to which they relate

7 November 2025

- The Federal Office of Justice issues a disciplinary fine order of 50,000 euros against ZhongDe Waste Technology AG for failure to submit consolidated financial statements for financial year 2024 to the Bundesanzeiger in electronic form

04 May 2026

- BaFin publishes the enforcement measure, disclosing the disciplinary fine imposed by the Federal Office of Justice and the underlying breach of sections 325 and 335 HGB

Compliance Impact

Non-compliance with HGB disclosure obligations can result in substantial monetary disciplinary fines up to 50,000 euros per breach under section 335 HGB and repeated sanctions, and may expose management to personal liability and reputational damage. For issuers already under scrutiny for WpHG reporting failures, further HGB breaches materially increase enforcement risk and may affect relationships with investors, lenders and trading venues.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All FirmsBank

🇨🇦 OSFI News

May 4th 2026

Regulators and audit leaders discuss audit quality and confidence in Canada’s financial reporting

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇺🇸 CFTC News

May 1st 2026

CFTC Staff Issues Supplemental Letter Regarding No-Action Position on Reporting, Recordkeeping Requirements

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇳🇱 AFM News

May 1st 2026

AFM decision regarding deferred publication of the volume of certain transactions in Dutch sovereign bonds

The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has adopted a decision regarding the deferred publication of the volume of certain transactions in Dutch sovereign bonds. Pursuant to this decision, which enters into force on 4 May 2026, market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make public the volume of individual transactions in sovereign bonds with an amount between €15 million and €50 million no later than the close of the trading day.

Effective Date: 4 May 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation low

April 30th 2026

ESMA launches its sixth stress test exercise for Central Counterparties

ESMA launches its sixth stress test exercise for Central Counterparties 30 April 2026 CCP Press Releases The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, today launched its sixth stress test exercise for Central Counterparties (CCPs) . The CCP stress test framework drafted by ESMA for the purpose of this exercise is supported by an adverse market scenario provided by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). Mandated under the European ...

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Technology & Cyber

Topics:

All Firms

🇪🇺 ESMA Speech

April 30th 2026

ESMA launches a call for evidence on the structure of European equity markets

ESMA launches a call for evidence on the structure of European equity markets 30 April 2026 Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has published a call for evidence (CfE) presenting a data driven analysis of the evolution of trading in European equity markets between 2022 and 2025, based on MiFIR transaction reporting data. The CfE invites stakeholder feedback on observed trends and their potential regulatory implications. The analysis shows that European equity markets ...

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Technology & Cyber Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

Broker Dealer

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

April 30th 2026

flatexDEGIRO SE: Bafin imposes administrative fine

On 20 April 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed an administrative fine amounting to €1,000,000 on flatexDEGIRO SE on the grounds that the company had infringed the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) at the end of 2022. It had failed to disclose inside information to the public as soon as possible. The inside information concerned the findings from a special inspection carried out at flatexDEGIRO Bank AG in accordance with section 44 of the German Banking Act (KWG) in ...

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed a €1,000,000 administrative fine on flatexDEGIRO SE for a breach of Article 17(1) MAR in late 2022, specifically for failing to disclose inside information “as soon as possible” via an ad hoc announcement and instead releasing the information late and only as a press release. The case underscores that BaFin treats supervisory findings under section 44 KWG which reveal organisational shortcomings as price‑sensitive inside information and expects German‑domiciled listed issuers to use full MAR‑compliant ad hoc disclosures, not generic press communications, when such findings arise.

What Changed

- BaFin confirms that supervisory findings from a section 44 KWG special inspection that identify shortcomings in proper business organisation can constitute inside information requiring ad hoc...
BaFin re‑emphasises that issuers must disclose inside information “as soon as possible” and that delayed or gradual communication via standard press releases does not satisfy MAR ad hoc disclosure...
BaFin reiterates its power to impose administrative fines for failures to publish inside information in a timely and proper manner, up to €2.5 million or 2% of total revenue, and demonstrates its...
BaFin clarifies that the appropriate format for investor‑relevant inside information is a MAR‑compliant ad hoc disclosure, not a general press release, and that any delay or downgrading of format can...
The publication reinforces that issuers domiciled in Germany whose instruments are traded on organised markets or MTFs remain fully subject to MAR ad hoc disclosure obligations, including for...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update internal MAR Article 17 policies to ensure that all supervisory findings, particularly section 44 KWG special inspections revealing organisational shortcomings, are assessed promptly and systematically for potential classification as inside information.
Implement or strengthen formal escalation procedures so that supervisory findings and other potential inside information are immediately escalated from risk, compliance, and legal to the issuer’s disclosure committee or senior management for rapid ad hoc disclosure decisions.
Ensure that any information determined to be inside information is disclosed “as soon as possible” via a formal MAR‑compliant ad hoc announcement and not merely via a standard press release or non‑regulated communication channel.
Review current disclosure controls and procedures to confirm that ad hoc announcements are distinguished clearly from general press releases, including separate workflows, templates, approval chains, and distribution lists.
Conduct a gap analysis of past supervisory communications and regulatory inspections to confirm that no potentially price‑sensitive findings were handled only as press releases; remediate control failures and document lessons learned.

Key Dates

2022 (end of year)

– flatexDEGIRO SE becomes aware of BaFin’s section 44 KWG special inspection findings on shortcomings in proper business organisation and fails to publish an ad hoc disclosure “as soon as possible.”

20 April 2026

– BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €1,000,000 on flatexDEGIRO SE for infringement of the MAR ad hoc disclosure obligation in Article 17(1)

30 April 2026

– BaFin publicly announces the administrative fine and publishes the enforcement notice

07 May 2026

– BaFin modifies or updates the published enforcement notice (administrative information change, not a new regulatory obligation)

Compliance Impact

Failure to comply with MAR ad hoc disclosure obligations can result in significant financial penalties (up to €2.5 million or 2% of total revenue) and reputational damage, especially where supervisory findings about organisational shortcomings are not promptly and properly disclosed. The BaFin fine signals a strict enforcement stance and raises the expectation that compliance and governance weaknesses identified by regulators will be treated as inside information requiring rapid ad hoc disclosure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

April 29th 2026

ESMA consults on guidelines on endorsement under the ESG Ratings Regulation

ESMA consults on guidelines on endorsement under the ESG Ratings Regulation 29 April 2026 Credit Rating Agencies The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has launched a public consultation on draft guidelines on endorsement under the ESG Ratings Regulation 1 . The consultation paper sets out ESMA’s proposed approach to the endorsement of non-EU ESG ratings under the regulatory framework and seeks feedback from ESG rating providers and other stakeholders on the draft guidelines. Th...

Sectors:

ESG Technology & Cyber Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

All Firms

Wealth & Private Banking Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

April 29th 2026

TGI AG: Bafin prohibits company from offering capital investments to the public

On 18 April 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) prohibited TGI AG from offering capital investments under the names of “Customer Basic 2%” and „Customer Basic 2% + Treuerabatt” (Customer Basic 2% + loyalty discount) to the public due to a violation of the German Capital Investment Act (VermAnlG). In return for the temporary provision of money, these investments grant interest and the physical delivery of gold. TGI AG may not offer the capital investments in question for ...

AI Analysis

BaFin has prohibited TGI AG from publicly offering its gold‑linked products “Customer Basic 2%” and “Customer Basic 2% + Treuerabatt” in Germany because the firm launched a public offer of capital investments without an approved prospectus under the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz – VermAnlG). The order is immediately enforceable and has become final, underscoring that any structured gold or commodity “discount” or deferred-delivery model that involves interest and repayment of money will be treated as a VermAnlG capital investment requiring a BaFin‑approved prospectus before public marketing.

What Changed

- BaFin has formally classified the products “Customer Basic 2%” and “Customer Basic 2% + Treuerabatt” as capital investments (Vermögensanlagen) because customers temporarily provide money in return...
BaFin has prohibited TGI AG from offering these specific capital investments to the public in Germany, meaning no marketing, distribution, or sale of these products to German investors.
The prohibition initially took effect on an immediately enforceable basis and has since become final, removing any remaining legal uncertainty over the enforceability of the order.
The enforcement action confirms BaFin’s expectation that any public offer of capital investments in Germany must be preceded by publication of a prospectus that has been approved (“gebilligt”) by...
BaFin reiterates that its prospectus review is limited to completeness, coherence and comprehensibility of mandatory disclosures and does not involve verification of factual accuracy, issuer...

Suggested Considerations

Identify and classify all existing and planned gold‑linked, commodity‑linked, or “discount”/loyalty investment models offered to German‑resident clients to determine whether they qualify as capital investments (Vermögensanlagen) under VermAnlG rather than simple goods purchases.
Implement an internal product‑approval control that requires legal determination of the regulatory perimeter (VermAnlG, KWG, WpPG, etc.) before any public offer or marketing of investment‑like products in Germany.
Ensure that no public offers of capital investments are made in Germany unless and until a prospectus has been prepared in accordance with VermAnlG and formally approved by BaFin, and is then published and made available to investors.
Review distribution and marketing materials (websites, brochures, social media campaigns, affiliate and MLM networks) to remove any references to capital investment‑type products that lack an approved prospectus for the German market.
Establish a process to check BaFin’s prospectus database prior to launch to confirm that the final approved prospectus is duly filed and accessible, and maintain internal evidence of filing and approval.

Key Dates

18 April 2026 DEADLINE

- BaFin issues the prohibition order against TGI AG’s public offer of “Customer Basic 2%” and “Customer Basic 2% + Treuerabatt” due to missing BaFin‑approved prospectuses under VermAnlG; the measure is immediately enforceable

20 April 2026

- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website, formally informing the market that TGI AG may not offer the relevant capital investments for sale in Germany

29 April 2026

- Publication date stated on the BaFin notice, indicating the formal consumer communication of the prohibition

22 May 2026

- BaFin updates the notice to confirm that the prohibition decision has become final (bestandskräftig), closing off ordinary appeals and confirming its long‑term validity

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with VermAnlG prospectus requirements can lead to immediate and final prohibitions on product offerings, forced cessation of marketing and distribution activities, reputational damage, and potential civil liability for issuers. For cross‑border precious metals and alternative investment firms, failure to treat such schemes as regulated capital investments may also trigger wider supervisory investigations into unauthorised business and investor protection breaches.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Wealth ManagerBroker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money Crypto & Digital Assets

🇮🇪 CBI Enforcement critical

April 29th 2026

Remarks by Director of Horizontal Supervision, Patricia Dunne to the European Anti-Financial Crime Summit, Dublin

Safeguarding Financial Integrity – Central Bank of Ireland’s Approach to Financial Crime Prevention Thank you for the invitation to speak at today’s event. This is an important opportunity for us to engage and share our experiences and approaches to deal with the global challenges and issues we are facing in financial crime. Change, instability, flux, unpredictability - all words that I guarantee you will hear on multiple occasions throughout the day’s events. I will not be any different. We ...

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Bank

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

April 29th 2026

Wild Bunch AG: Bafin imposes administrative fine

On 13 April 2026, Bafin imposed an administrative fine amounting to €300,000 on Wild Bunch AG. The company had contravened obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). Wild Bunch AG had failed to publish its half-yearly financial report for the financial year 2024 within the prescribed period.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed a €300,000 administrative fine on Wild Bunch AG for failing to publish its 2024 half‑yearly financial report within the statutory deadline under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). This enforcement confirms BaFin’s zero‑tolerance stance on delayed periodic financial reporting, with no exceptions permitted, and underscores the need for robust disclosure controls at all German issuers admitted to an organised market.

What Changed

- Half‑yearly financial reporting deadlines under the WpHG are reaffirmed as hard requirements: issuers must prepare and publish a half‑yearly financial report for the first six months of each...
BaFin explicitly reiterates that the WpHG provides no exceptions or exemptions from the obligation to publish half‑yearly financial reports within the prescribed period, including for operational,...
Failure to publish half‑yearly financial reports, or to publish them within the three‑month deadline, constitutes an administrative offence under the WpHG and exposes issuers to administrative fines.
BaFin may impose administrative fines up to the greater of €10 million or 5% of total revenue for breaches of periodic financial reporting obligations under the WpHG.
The Wild Bunch AG case demonstrates BaFin’s willingness to apply material fines for repeat or persistent breaches of disclosure obligations, reinforcing the expectation that issuers maintain...

Suggested Considerations

Issuers must ensure that half‑yearly financial reports are prepared and approved in time to be published no later than three months after the end of the first six months of the financial year.
Compliance and finance teams must implement and document a formal reporting calendar and controls that track and escalate upcoming half‑yearly reporting deadlines under the WpHG.
Boards and senior management must assign clear responsibility for WpHG reporting compliance, including accountability for timely half‑yearly disclosure and escalation of any risk of delay.
Listed companies must verify that their publication processes (including IT systems, external service providers, and Federal Gazette or exchange publication channels) can reliably meet the three‑month deadline, and must test contingency procedures.
Firms should conduct a retrospective review of recent half‑yearly reporting cycles to confirm that all reports have been published within the statutory timelines and remediate any control weaknesses identified.

Key Dates

30 June 2024

(inferable): End of the first six‑month period of the 2024 financial year for a calendar‑year issuer such as Wild Bunch AG, triggering the obligation to prepare a half‑yearly financial report

30 September 2024 DEADLINE

(inferable): Statutory deadline for publishing the 2024 half‑yearly financial report, three months after the end of the first six‑month period; publication after this date is considered belated and not permitted

13 April 2026

– BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €300,000 on Wild Bunch AG for failing to publish its 2024 half‑yearly financial report within the prescribed period under the WpHG

29 April 2026

– BaFin publishes the enforcement notice regarding the administrative fine imposed on Wild Bunch AG

08 May 2026

– BaFin modifies or updates the published enforcement notice, indicating finalisation of the public communication on the case

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with WpHG half‑yearly reporting deadlines can result in substantial administrative fines (up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue), repeated sanctions, and reputational damage, as illustrated by the Wild Bunch AG case. Persistent or systemic failures may also trigger broader regulatory scrutiny of financial reporting controls and senior management oversight.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

🇺🇸 CFTC News

April 28th 2026

CFTC Transitions Its Public Comment Submission Process to Regulations.gov

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇬🇧 FCA News

April 28th 2026

FCA invites ESG rating providers to join a voluntary reporting pilot

Help us develop a proportionate reporting regime for ESG ratings. Register your interest by 13 May 2026. We're inviting ESG rating providers to join a pilot to inform future regulatory reporting once the regime is live.Our aim is to avoid unnecessary reporting burden for firms over time.The pilot aims to help us assess whether the proposed metrics for ESG ratings reporting are:clearfeasibleproportionate across different business modelsuseful for supervisory purposesParticipants will have a di...

Deadline: 13 May 2026

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime ESG Technology & Cyber

Topics:

All Firms

🇮🇪 CBI Enforcement critical

April 28th 2026

New Central Bank research reveals one in three Irish adults have experienced fraud, yet 38% never report it

More than one in three Irish adults (35%) have experienced fraud or scams. 38% of fraud victims never reported their experience to their financial service provider or any authority. Research identified risky online behaviours as the single strongest predictor of fraud experience—more influential than age, income, or education level. Fraud victims are far more likely to recover monies when the fraud is reported. Fraud literacy reduces predicted fraud exposure Central Bank of Ireland of Ireland...

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇱🇺 CSSF News

April 27th 2026

Guidelines on the U1.1 reporting (Updated)

Version 6.7

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇺🇸 CFTC News

April 24th 2026

CFTC Reaffirms Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Filing

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇪🇺 ESMA News

April 24th 2026

Joint Committee annual report highlights digitalisation, cyber resilience and sustainable finance as key priorities of 2025

Joint Committee annual report highlights digitalisation, cyber resilience and sustainable finance as key priorities of 2025 24 April 2026 Joint Committee The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA – the ESAs) today published its Annual Report for 2025 , setting out the main priorities and achievements of its cross-sectoral work over the past year. In 2025, the Joint Committee focused on protecting consumers in increasingly digital financial markets, stren...

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Fintech

🇬🇧 FCA News

April 24th 2026

FCA spearheads global action to stop illegal finfluencers

The FCA has led international action to stop illegal finfluencers putting consumers' money at risk. Seventeen regulators worldwide took part in the 'week of action' which included enforcement activity, consumer awareness campaigns, and educational programmes for finfluencers who want to act responsibly. Activity started on 20 April 2026.In the UK, the FCA:Secured a guilty plea from Geordie Shore’s Aaron Chalmers for illegal promotions on social media. Criminal proceedings have been commenced ...

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Payments & E-Money

🇳🇱 AFM News

April 24th 2026

AMLA start consultatie AML-CFT-risicobeoordeling en beleid

De Europese anti-witwas- en anti-terrorismefinanciering autoriteit (AMLA) is twee openbare consultaties gestart. De ontwerpinstrumenten geven richting aan hoe meldingsplichtige instellingen de risico’s op witwassen en terrorismefinanciering moeten identificeren, beoordelen en beheersen. Hiermee wordt gewerkt aan een geharmoniseerde Europese aanpak.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankAsset ManagerPayment Provider

🇦🇺 ASIC News

April 23rd 2026

On 20 April 2026, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, Limited Partnership for the systematically incorrect notifications of its net short positions in two companies listed on Euronext Amsterdam. Arrowstreet thus violated the rules on short selling between July 2020 and November 2024.

AI Analysis

AFM has imposed an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for **systematic underreporting and underdisclosure of net short positions** in two Euronext Amsterdam issuers between July 2020 and November 2024, caused by an error in its short position calculation methodology. The case underscores that AFM expects robust calculation, control and reporting frameworks around short selling, and that repeated methodology errors leading to incorrect notifications and public disclosures will be treated as serious violations of the EU short selling and Dutch transparency regimes, even where firms later cooperate.

What Changed

- AFM has reaffirmed strict enforcement of notification and disclosure obligations for net short positions in shares admitted to trading on Euronext Amsterdam, including the expectation of accurate...
The case confirms AFM’s interpretation that systematic underreporting (wrong figures in 101 notifications) and underdisclosure to the public (wrong figures in 85 cases) constitutes a material breach...
AFM emphasises that net short positions must be notified promptly and accurately, and that disclosures above the public threshold are a key tool for market participants to understand negative...
AFM demonstrates that self‑reporting, prompt correction, full cooperation and remediation can result in a reduced fine and simplified settlement, signalling a clear incentive structure for firms to...
The publication reinforces that AFM will use the short selling register and underlying notifications to monitor for market abuse, market distortion and systemic risks, increasing scrutiny on firms...

Suggested Considerations

Review and document the firm’s methodology for calculating net short positions in EU‑listed shares, ensuring alignment with the EU Short Selling Regulation and AFM’s thresholds and definitions, including aggregation rules and treatment of derivatives.
Perform a comprehensive back‑testing and reconciliation of historical and current net short position calculations against trade data, positions and corporate actions to identify any systemic discrepancies or underreporting risks.
Implement or enhance controls that validate short position calculations prior to submission, including independent second‑line checks, exception reporting, and automated variance checks for large movements or threshold breaches.
Map all AFM short selling notification and disclosure thresholds and timing requirements into the firm’s surveillance and reporting systems, ensuring automated alerts when positions reach, exceed or fall below relevant levels.
Establish robust governance over short selling reporting, including clear ownership between trading, operations, risk and compliance, formal sign‑off procedures, and regular reporting to senior management on short‑selling compliance.

Key Dates

July 2020

– Start of the period in which Arrowstreet’s incorrect calculation methodology led to systematically incorrect net short position notifications to AFM and underdisclosures to the public

November 2024

– End of the period during which Arrowstreet violated short selling rules through inaccurate notifications and disclosures of its net short positions in Just Eat Takeaway.com and Galapagos

20 April 2026

– AFM imposes an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for the systematic incorrect notifications and underdisclosures of net short positions

22 April 2026

– AFM publishes the enforcement notice stating that the case has been settled via a simplified procedure and is closed

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with AFM short selling notification and disclosure obligations can result in significant administrative fines, reputational damage, and heightened supervisory scrutiny, particularly where errors are systemic or affect numerous notifications. AFM’s willingness to reduce the fine in this case was contingent on proactive self‑reporting and remediation, but the underlying violations still triggered a sizeable penalty and public enforcement notice.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AFM source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge FundBroker Dealer

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

April 21st 2026

ESMA support ESEF implementation with updated taxonomy

ESMA support ESEF implementation with updated taxonomy 21 April 2026 Electronic reporting The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published the 2025 European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) XBRL taxonomy files , together with an updated ESEF Conformance Suite . These materials support issuers and software vendors in preparing 2026 IFRS consolidated financial statements using the most up‑to‑date ESEF format. The 2025 taxono...

Sectors:

Technology & Cyber Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

April 21st 2026

Non-compliance with notification requirements: Bafin imposes administrative fines

On 15 October 2025, Bafin imposed six administrative fines of €40,000 each on a natural person. The fines were imposed due to the failure of the person in question to comply with the requirements of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). This person had failed to submit voting rights notifications.

AI Analysis

BaFin has publicly disclosed that, on 15 October 2025, it imposed six administrative fines of EUR 40,000 each (total EUR 240,000) on a natural person for failing to submit mandatory voting rights notifications under section 33 WpHG. The case underscores BaFin’s strict enforcement stance on major holdings transparency and highlights that failures to notify within the four‑trading‑day deadline can trigger substantial, repeated sanctions up to EUR 2 million for individuals.

What Changed

- BaFin reiterates that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights in a listed issuer reach, exceed, or fall below specific statutory...
Voting rights held by subsidiaries are deemed to be attributable to the parent undertaking and must be included when assessing whether disclosure thresholds are triggered.
Parties subject to voting rights notification requirements are required to use the binding notification form prescribed in section 12(1) of the German Securities Trading Reporting Regulation (WpAV).
A failure to notify threshold crossings to both the issuer and BaFin constitutes a violation of section 33(1) sentence 1 WpHG and can lead to administrative fines.
BaFin confirms that, where imposed on a natural person, the administrative fine for breaches of voting rights notification duties can be up to EUR 2 million per infringement.

Suggested Considerations

Map all holdings of German‑listed shares across the group, including subsidiaries and controlled entities, to ensure accurate aggregation of voting rights for threshold monitoring under section 33 WpHG.
Implement or enhance automated monitoring systems that track voting rights positions in German issuers against the statutory thresholds (3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50%, 75%) and flag potential reportable events in real time.
Establish internal procedures to ensure that any threshold crossings are identified and notified to both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days, including clear workflows, responsibilities, and escalation paths.
Standardise use of the binding BaFin/WpAV voting rights notification form and integrate it into internal reporting templates and the BaFin MVP reporting portal processes.
Train front‑office, trading, portfolio‑management, and legal/compliance staff on the WpHG voting rights disclosure regime, including treatment of subsidiaries’ holdings and consequences of late or missing notifications.

Key Dates

15 October 2025

- BaFin imposes six administrative fines of EUR 40,000 each on a natural person for failure to submit voting rights notifications under the WpHG

21 April 2026 DEADLINE

- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice “Non‑compliance with notification requirements: BaFin imposes administrative fines,” providing background on voting rights notification rules and the fines imposed

TBD

- Ongoing obligation for shareholders and other parties subject to section 33 WpHG to submit voting rights notifications within four trading days whenever statutory thresholds are reached, exceeded, or fallen below

Compliance Impact

Non‑compliance with voting rights notification requirements under section 33 WpHG can result in repeated administrative fines and, for natural persons, sanctions up to EUR 2 million per infringement, creating substantial financial and reputational risk. The published case signals that BaFin will actively identify and penalise failures to notify, including where multiple breaches arise from the same underlying omission.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation high

April 20th 2026

SEC and CFTC Jointly Propose Amendments to Reduce Private Fund Reporting Burdens

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly proposed amendments to reduce private fund reporting burdens while enabling the continued collection of necessary and appropriate information. The…

AI Analysis

The SEC and CFTC have jointly proposed amendments to Form PF to reduce reporting burdens for private fund advisers by streamlining data requirements, simplifying calculations, and adjusting filing thresholds, while preserving essential information for systemic risk monitoring and investor protection. This matters for compliance professionals as it offers relief from prior expansions to Form PF (adopted in 2024), potentially lowering operational costs amid ongoing regulatory scrutiny, but requires monitoring during the comment period to influence final rules. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-40-sec-cftc-jointly-propose-amendments-reduce-private-fund-reporting-burdens

What Changed

- Streamlined Reporting Items: Amendments propose removing or simplifying certain Form PF fields, such as reducing detailed breakdowns of investment exposures, counterparty data, and performance...
Adjusted Filing Thresholds: Raise thresholds for "large hedge fund advisers" and "large private equity advisers" (e.g., from $1.5B to potentially higher AUM levels for certain funds), limiting who...
Simplified Calculations: Eliminate complex aggregation rules for master-feeder/parallel structures, revert to prior methods for inflows/outflows and AUM (e.g., no double-counting exclusions for...
Event Reporting Relief: Propose delaying or narrowing 72-hour current event reporting (e.g., for large hedge funds under new Section 6), responding to burden complaints from 2024 amendments. These...

Suggested Considerations

Review Proposal: Download full proposing release post-Federal Register publication; assess current Form PF processes against proposed simplifications (e.g., audit AUM calculations, exposure schedules).
Submit Comments: File detailed feedback by comment deadline, focusing on burden estimates, implementation feasibility, and alternatives (e.g., via SEC's online portal); prioritize if your firm files quarterly/detailed sections.
Update Systems: Map current reporting workflows to proposed changes; pilot simplified data pulls for inflows, performance, and structures; prepare for potential transition rules if adopted.
Monitor Extensions: Track related no-action relief (e.g., CFTC Letter 25-50 for interim burden reduction) and Form N-PORT extensions.
Internal Training: Educate compliance teams on threshold changes and event reporting tweaks to avoid over-reporting during transition.

Key Dates

Nov. 17, 2027 DEADLINE

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF publication highlights AMLA's public consultation on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) under Articles 16(4) and 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, specifying minimum group-wide AML/CFT requirements and additional measures for subsidiaries and branches in third countries. This matters because it aims to harmonize cross-border AML frameworks, ensuring groups maintain consolidated ML/TF risk views and robust controls, particularly in high-risk third-country operations, impacting EU financial groups' compliance structures. Private sector input is encouraged to align standards with practical operations.[https://www.cssf.lu/en/Document/public-consultation-by-amla-on-the-draft-rts-on-group-wide-minimum-requirements-and-additional-measures-for-subsidiaries-and-branches-in-third-countries/][https://www.amla.europa.eu/amla-consults-group-wide-requirements-and-business-wide-risk-assessment_en]

What Changed

- Group-wide AML/CFT frameworks: Establishes minimum standards for design and implementation across groups, including cross-border structures and third-country operations, to enable consolidated...
Third-country subsidiaries and branches: Introduces additional measures for entities in non-EU countries, extending requirements beyond traditional groups to other...
Information sharing and parent identification: Defines provisions for intra-group data sharing and criteria to identify the EU parent undertaking when multiple entities report to a third-country head...
Interlinked mandates: Cross-references obligations between Articles 16(4) and 17(3) for complementary requirements on organizational...

Suggested Considerations

Register for 20 May 2026 public hearing to engage directly on practical application across group structures.[https://www.amla.europa.eu/events/public-hearing-draft-rts-group-wide-minimum-requirements-and-additional-measures-subsidiaries-and-2026-05-20_en]
Assess current group-wide AML/CFT frameworks against proposed minimums, identifying gaps in third-country controls, risk consolidation, and data sharing protocols.

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

April 17th 2026

CP7/26 – Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27

Consultation paper 7/26

AI Analysis

The PRA's CP7/26 consultation proposes fee rates and amendments to the Fees Part of the PRA Rulebook for 2026/27 to meet a Total Funding Requirement (TFR) of £346.6 million, down 1% from 2025/26, primarily funding Ongoing Regulatory Activities (ORA) at £329.3 million. This matters for PRA-authorised firms as it involves adjusted periodic fees across blocks, increased allocations for initiatives like Future Banking Data, and other targeted fees, requiring budget planning and potential consultation responses.

What Changed

- Proposed fee rates to cover the 2026/27 Annual Funding Requirement (AFR) of £329.3 million (ORA only, down 2% from 2025/26).
Increased cost allocation for the Future Banking Data (FBD) programme, from £3.2 million to £6.8 million (111% rise), contributing to 'other fees to industry' rising 26% to £17.4 million.
Adjustments to specific fees: internal model application fees, model maintenance fee (£9.6 million, unchanged), Special Project Fee for restructuring, and new firm authorisation fees for Type 1...
Fee block variations, e.g., A1 (Modified Eligible Liabilities) fee rates down 7% despite 6% tariff data growth; A3 (Gross Written Premiums) down 4%, Best Estimate Liabilities down 2%; minimum fees...
Overall TFR down 1% to £346.6 million, with provisional figures subject to revision based on final costs.

Suggested Considerations

Review proposed fee impacts using tariff data (e.g., via PRA-provided tables) and budget for 2026/27 TFR, including potential increases in FBD/other fees.
Submit responses by 15 May 2026, indicating confidentiality preferences, consent to name publication, and whether responding individually or for an organisation; personal data will be handled per Bank privacy notice.
For new applicants or restructuring firms: Factor in updated authorisation and Special Project Fees during planning.
Monitor PRA Business Plan 2026/27 for funded activities context.

Key Dates

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerWealth Manager

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

🇨🇭 FINMA News medium

April 17th 2026

ESMA launches a call for evidence on restricted subscription and private credit ratings 16 April 2026 Credit Rating Agencies The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, today launched a call for evidence to gather stakeholder views on the purposes, market practices, needs and risks associated with restricted subscription and private credit ratings. ESMA is encouraging all interested stakeholders to share views, data and analysis i...

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched a call for evidence on restricted subscription and private credit ratings to gather stakeholder input on their market practices, uses, risks, and potential regulatory gaps under the CRA Regulation. This matters because rising use of these non-public ratings could prompt future clarifications or adjustments to ensure consistent standards with public ratings, impacting credit rating agencies (CRAs) and users reliant on them for regulatory or investment purposes.

What Changed

There are no immediate regulatory changes; this is a fact-finding call for evidence to assess whether adjustments to the CRA Regulation are needed. ESMA seeks views on definitions (e.g., restricted subscription ratings as selectively distributed to limited subscribers with economic interest; private ratings excluded from CRA scope if not distributed to >150 persons), production processes, governance comparability to public ratings, distribution risks, and market needs. Potential future outcomes include enhanced clarity on CRA Regulation application, but none are confirmed yet.

Suggested Considerations

Review the full Call for Evidence document and annexes for specific questions on restricted subscription (Annex I) and private credit ratings (Annex II).
Prepare and submit evidence-based responses addressing key areas: use cases/benefits vs. public ratings, contracting/distribution parties, analytical/governance comparability, transparency impacts, risks/mitigations, and multi-CRA practices.
Provide quantitative data, concrete examples, and rationale; indicate specific questions and alternatives considered.
Submit online by 31 May 2026 using the docx reply form; note responses may be published unless confidentiality requested.

Key Dates

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF News

April 16th 2026

Any additional information referred to in Article 23(1) for each AIF the AIFM intends to market (Paragraph (f) of annex IV of AIFMD) (Updated)

Version 3.1

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

April 16th 2026

The EBA Guidelines and Recommendations (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇫🇷 AMF News high

April 15th 2026

The AMF welcomes the first criminal rulings in an insider network case

MAR Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF welcomes the first criminal rulings in an insider network case

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇬🇧 FCA News high

April 15th 2026

FCA consults on guidance on UK’s future crypto regime

Crypto will be regulated in the UK from October 2027. The FCA is finalising the wider cryptoasset regime, with rules to be published this summer. Parliament has now confirmed which cryptoasset activities will fall within the scope of regulation. Building on that, the FCA is consulting on new guidance to help firms understand how they might be affected by the regulatory regime for cryptoassets.The FCA is seeking feedback on its interpretation of the following regulated cryptoasset activities:i...

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

April 14th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.683 April 14, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News high

April 14th 2026

ECB Governing Council urges Single Market boost to strengthen bank competitiveness

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 FCA News high

April 14th 2026

FCA sets out vision for open finance to empower consumers and businesses

Consumers and businesses could be given greater control over their financial data to help secure better deals, under a vision for open finance published by the FCA. Open finance will unlock the potential for people and businesses to share their financial data securely with a range of financial services providers, helping them access mortgages, investments, savings and pensions. This will give financial services firms a more complete picture of consumers’ and businesses’ finances, enabling mor...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

April 14th 2026

MAS Monetary Policy Statement - April 2026

Read the Monetary Policy Statement for April 2026.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇨🇦 OSFI News high

April 14th 2026

The Bank of England has today published new and updated guidance on how the Bank might implement the UK’s resolution regime in the event of a bank failure.

AI Analysis

The Bank of England (BoE) has published updated operational guides on implementing the UK's resolution regime for failing banks, including new details on transfer resolutions and an alternate bail-in approach using non-transferable contingent beneficial interests, informed by recent failures like Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse. This matters for compliance professionals as it enhances transparency on BoE execution strategies, strengthens cross-border resolvability (e.g., via a US SEC No-Action Letter), and requires firms to align recovery/resolution plans with these operational clarifications to ensure feasibility and credibility under the Resolvability Assessment Framework (RAF).[BoE News Release](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2026/april/boe-enhances-resolution-readiness-with-updated-operational-guides)

What Changed

- New Operational Guide to Transfer Resolution: Details BoE's execution of transfers to private sector purchasers or temporary bridge banks, including recapitalisation payments and use of resolution...
Updates to Operational Guide to Bail-in Resolution: Introduces an alternate approach where affected creditors receive non-transferable contingent beneficial interests (simplifying bail-in by...
US SEC No-Action Letter: Confirms non-transferable contingent beneficial interests for US investors need no SEC registration, aiding cross-border bail-in operability.[BoE News...

Suggested Considerations

Assess resolvability: Major firms perform and disclose self-assessments under RAF; address identified barriers or face BoE powers to mandate fixes.
Enhance capabilities: Implement MREL, operational continuity in resolution (OCIR), and Single Customer View for deposits; prepare for recapitalisation or non-transferable interests in bail-in.
Cross-border coordination: US-exposed firms leverage SEC No-Action Letter for bail-in planning; engage BoE on international strategies.[BoE News Release](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2026/april/boe-enhances-resolution-readiness-with-updated-operational-guides)
Monitor thresholds: Notify BoE/PRA if approaching £25bn assets or account thresholds.

Key Dates

Ongoing DEADLINE

- Firms must maintain resolution packs and MREL compliance; bail-in firms have at least **6 years** (plus up to 2-year extension) to meet end-state MREL, and **minimum 18 months** for additional resolvability requirements

Advance notification DEADLINE

- Modified insolvency firms forecasting £25bn assets or transactional account thresholds within 3 years must inform BoE/PRA

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - This is guidance, not new rules, but directly impacts resolution plan credibility and RAF assessments, with potential supervisory/enforcement actions for non-alignment (e.g., MREL shortfalls or unresolved barriers). Firms must act proactively to avoid heightened BoE scrutiny, especially post-SVB/Credit Suisse lessons emphasizing bail-in effectiveness and no public fund reliance.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News low

April 13th 2026

From anxiety to action: Helping Australians to plan for their financial future

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

April 13th 2026

Viva Energy reassesses accounting approach after ASIC review, resulting in $25 million impairment

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Consumer Protection / Conduct

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇯🇵 JFSA Consultation high

April 10th 2026

Councils,Draft revisions to the Corporate Governance Code for public consultation

No description available.

AI Analysis

The Financial Services Agency (FSA) and Tokyo Stock Exchange have launched a public consultation on draft revisions to Japan's Corporate Governance Code, with comments due by May 15, 2026. This represents the first major update since 2021 and aims to redirect corporate resource allocation toward growth investments, research and development, and human capital rather than short-term shareholder returns. The revised code will become effective this summer and requires listed companies to submit governance reports by July 2027.

What Changed

The draft revisions introduce several substantive modifications to Japan's corporate governance framework:
Resource Allocation Focus: Boards must continuously examine whether management resources (cash, deposits, real estate, and other assets) are allocated appropriately, with emphasis on growth...
Principles-Based Streamlining: The code has been streamlined to adopt a more principles-based approach, moving from form to substance and reducing prescriptive requirements.
Collective Engagement Promotion: The revisions aim to promote collective and collaborative engagements among investors, strengthening dialogue between companies and investors.
Beneficial Shareholder Transparency: Enhanced transparency requirements regarding the identification of beneficial shareholders.

Suggested Considerations

*For Listed Companies:
*Immediate (by May 15, 2026): Review the draft revisions (Materials 1 and 2) and consider submitting comments during the public consultation period if your organization wishes to influence final provisions.
*Pre-Implementation (Summer 2026): Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis comparing current governance practices against the draft requirements, particularly regarding:
Board processes for examining resource allocation decisions
Documentation of investment policy rationale

Key Dates

Summer 2026

- Official adoption of the revised Corporate Governance Code

May 15, 2026 DEADLINE

- Public consultation comment submission deadline (JST)

June 1, 2026

- Anticipated effective date (based on historical pattern; confirmation pending final adoption)

July 2027 DEADLINE

- Listed companies must submit governance reports under the new code

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original JFSA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure ESG

Asset ManagerBankAll Firms

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement medium

April 10th 2026

ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter

ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter 10 April 2026 ESMA newsletter The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published today its latest edition of the Spotlight on Markets newsletter. This edition opens with ESMA’s actions to simplify the retail investor journey and make investing more accessible, setting out steps to support retail participation in capital markets. Top news highlights include the publication of t...

AI Analysis

ESMA's latest *Spotlight on Markets* newsletter (edition 42, published 10 April 2026) summarizes recent supervisory, enforcement, and policy actions, emphasizing simplification of retail investor access, high market risks per the first 2026 TRV report, and key publications on transparency, suitability, MiFID II/MiFIR data, and Listing Act compliance.[User Query] This matters for compliance teams as it signals ESMA's priorities in reducing regulatory burdens while enhancing investor protection and market transparency amid a high-risk environment.

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

27 February 2026

Publication of annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments

10 April 2026

Release of first 2026 TRV report and newsletter; .

15 April 2026

Public hearing on EBA-ESMA joint guidelines on suitability of management body and key function holders

20 April 2026 DEADLINE

Consultation deadline on regulatory standards for post-trade risk reduction services under EMIR 3

29 April 2026

Consultation on MAR Guidelines on delay in disclosure of inside information

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This newsletter compiles ongoing developments rather than enacting immediate rules, but tied consultations (e.g., suitability by 25 May 2026) and recent publications (e.g., transparency calculations) require prompt review to avoid enforcement risks in a high-risk market flagged by TRV.[User Query] It matters for aligning with ESMA's simplification push while preparing for stricter suitability, data, and risk rules, potentially reducing costs but increasing scrutiny on retail protection and transparency.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇬🇧 FCA Warning medium

April 10th 2026

Spotting risk earlier by tracking consumer credit journeys

How we're investing in data and analytics in consumer financeOur goal is regulation that is evidence-based, targeted, and achieves good outcomes for consumers. That’s why we’ve been using richer datasets and sharper data science to drive better outcomes in the consumer finance market, widen financial inclusion, and support economic growth.This blog post explains one way we've been doing that, in a proof-of-concept undertaken by the team of Isabela Barra, Daniel Bogiatzis-Gibbons, Lawrence Cha...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankFintechAll Firms

Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

April 10th 2026

Communication to the investment fund industry

regarding the “LMT activation” module in relation to additional liquidity management requirements for Luxembourg-domiciled UCITS, or where applicable their management company, and Luxembourg-authorised AIFMs that manage open-ended AIFs, introduced by the Law of 3 March 2026, transposing Directive (EU) 2024/927 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

April 10th 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

April 9th 2026

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that David Woodcock has been appointed Director of the Division of Enforcement, effective May 4, 2026. Mr. Woodcock is currently a partner in the Dallas and Washington, D.C. offices of Gibson, Dunn…

AI Analysis

The SEC has appointed David Woodcock, a Gibson Dunn partner and former SEC Regional Director, as the new Director of its Division of Enforcement, effective May 4, 2026, following the abrupt resignation of prior Director Margaret Ryan after six months. This leadership change signals a "significant course correction" under Chairman Paul Atkins, emphasizing investor protection and market integrity over prior aggressive enforcement approaches. Compliance professionals should monitor this closely, as it may shift enforcement priorities, potentially de-emphasizing certain areas like crypto crackdowns while intensifying focus on accounting fraud and financial reporting violations.

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

Wealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Banking & Credit

🇸🇬 MAS News low

April 8th 2026

Written reply to Parliamentary Question on Variable Capital Companies (VCCs)

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

April 8th 2026

Written reply to Parliamentary Question on Household Liabilities and Household Assets

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintech

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Consumer Credit

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

April 8th 2026

Oral reply to Parliamentary Questions on safeguards for GIRO transactions

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintechPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement medium

April 7th 2026

SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced enforcement results for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2025.Central to an effective enforcement program is determining which cases to bring and responsibly stewarding Commission…

AI Analysis

The SEC's announcement details enforcement results for Fiscal Year 2025 (ended September 30, 2025), highlighting a significant slowdown in actions to 313 cases—the lowest in a decade—and $808 million in settlements, down 45% from FY 2024, amid leadership changes and a shift to "back-to-basics" priorities like retail investor protection. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals reduced enforcement volume under new Chair Paul Atkins, potential policy resets (e.g., crypto case dismissals), and a focus on core misconduct like fiduciary breaches and insider trading, influencing risk prioritization and resource allocation.

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

October 1, 2024

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

April 7th 2026

Sectors:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News

April 2nd 2026

List of members of the Resolution Board (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Crypto & Digital Assets Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 CFTC News high

April 1st 2026

CFTC Resolves Action Against Former FTX Head of Engineering

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Crypto ExchangeFintech

🇪🇺 ESMA Guidance high

April 1st 2026

ESMA clarifies expectations in the run-up to the launch of EU’s Consolidated Tapes

ESMA clarifies expectations in the run-up to the launch of EU’s Consolidated Tapes 01 April 2026 Market data Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published Questions and Answers (Q&As) on the onboarding of data contributors to the EU’s Consolidated Tapes (CTs), and on the operational rules for the Consolidated Tape Providers (CTPs). The goal is to increase certainty for all market participants in anticipation of...

AI Analysis

ESMA has issued Q&As clarifying expectations for data contributors onboarding to the EU's Consolidated Tapes (CTs) for equities, bonds, and derivatives, emphasizing pre-go-live cooperation with selected Consolidated Tape Providers (CTPs). This matters because it mandates trading venues and Authorised Publication Arrangements (APAs) to establish data transmission setups ahead of the **01 April 2026** launch, ensuring market transparency under MiFIR while minimizing disruptions. Compliance professionals must prioritize this to avoid supervisory scrutiny from ESMA and National Competent Authorities (NCAs).

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

2025

- ESMA selected fairCT for bonds CTP (authorization ongoing).

22 December 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on BigRep SE

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €20,000 administrative fine on BigRep SE on 1 April 2026 for failing to comply with a CSSF order to publish, disseminate, store on the Officially Appointed Mechanism (OAM), and file its half-yearly financial report as of 30 June 2025, under the Luxembourg Transparency Law of 11 January 2008. This sanction underscores CSSF's strict enforcement of periodic disclosure obligations for issuers with Luxembourg as their home Member State, signaling heightened supervisory scrutiny on timely reporting.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement action under the existing amended Law of 11 January 2008 on transparency requirements for issuers (Transparency Law). Key requirements reiterated include Article 4 (obligation to publish half-yearly financial reports), effective dissemination, storage on the OAM, and filing with CSSF, with CSSF empowered under Article 25(1) to impose fines for non-compliance, considering circumstances per Article 26a. This follows a prior €10,000 fine on the same issuer on 12 January 2026 for initial failure to publish the same report.

Suggested Considerations

Issuers must ensure timely publication of periodic financial reports (half-yearly per Article 4, annual per Article 3) via effective dissemination, OAM storage (e.g., Luxembourg Stock Exchange systems), and CSSF filing.
Respond promptly to any CSSF orders or injunctions to avoid escalated fines.
Implement robust internal controls for reporting calendars, including automated reminders and pre-verification processes.
Review and file any overdue reports immediately upon CSSF notification.

Key Dates

30 June 2025

- Reference date for BigRep SE's half-yearly financial report that was not published

12 January 2026

- Date of initial €10,000 fine for failure to publish the report

1 April 2026 DEADLINE

- Date of €20,000 fine for non-compliance with CSSF order on report dissemination, OAM storage, and CSSF filing

1 July 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline to lodge appeal with the Tribunal administratif (three months from 1 April 2026 sanction, per Article 27)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – This enforcement highlights CSSF's proactive verification of disclosures and willingness to impose escalating fines (€10k initial, €20k for non-response, up to €40k in similar cases), but applies to specific non-compliance rather than new rules. It matters for Luxembourg-domiciled issuers as it demonstrates low tolerance for delays, potentially increasing audit focus on reporting processes and reputational risk from public sanctions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News medium

April 1st 2026

PRA Regulatory Digest – March 2026

The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Investment Management

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

April 1st 2026

Policy statement 8/26

AI Analysis

The PRA has finalized the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) Management Expenses Levy Limit (MELL) for 2026/27 at £113 million, effective April 1, 2026. This policy statement confirms the proposed budget following consultation, establishing the maximum amount that FSCS-levy-paying firms must fund for the compensation scheme's operating costs, with implications for all PRA and FCA-authorized firms across banking, insurance, and investment sectors.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsuranceAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇮🇪 CBI Speech

March 31st 2026

Opening Remarks by Governor Gabriel Makhlouf for the Savings and Investment Forum

Good morning and welcome to Central Bank of Ireland. Thank you for joining us for this inaugural gathering of the Savings and Investment Forum. I want to extend a particular welcome to the Tánaiste. Today marks an important milestone. The Department of Finance's 2024 Funds Review recognised the importance of enabling more retail investment in Ireland. It recommended establishing this Forum to address that challenge and today provides a timely opportunity to do so. Let me place this initiative...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

March 31st 2026

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers publishes the findings of its SPOT inspections on asset management companies’ compliance and internal control systems

Supervision Asset management Compliance Journalists Investment management companies The Autorité des Marchés Financiers publishes the findings of its SPOT inspections on asset management companies’ compliance and internal control systems

Sectors:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset Manager

Consumer Credit Payments & E-Money

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

March 31st 2026

Mecca companies pay $594,000 in infringement notices for failing to lodge financial reports on time

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

FintechPayment Provider

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

March 31st 2026

TC Unterhaltungselektronik AG: BaFin imposes administrative fine

On 20 March 2026, BaFin imposed an administrative fine amounting to 15,000 euros on TC Unterhaltungselektronik AG. TC Unterhaltungselektronik AG failed to publish an announcement stating the date and website on which its annual financial information for the financial year 2024 was made publicly available. The company has therefore contravened an obligation under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG).

AI Analysis

BaFin imposed a €15,000 administrative fine on TC Unterhaltungselektronik AG on 20 March 2026 for failing to publish a required announcement under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG) specifying the date and website for its 2024 annual financial information. This enforcement action underscores BaFin's commitment to timely and transparent disclosure of financial reports, enabling equal access for investors to critical data on net assets, financial position, results of operations, and future outlook. Compliance professionals should note this as a reminder of strict WpHG obligations, with fines up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue possible for non-compliance (https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c_neu_124_WpHG/meldung_2026_03_31_tc_unterhaltungselektronik_ag_en.html?cms_expanded=true).

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is an enforcement of existing WpHG requirements. Key obligations reaffirmed include:
Issuers of securities traded on organized markets in Germany must publish an announcement stating the date and website where annual financial information will be made publicly available online.
This must occur no later than four months after the financial year-end and before the first public availability of the reports (in addition to Company Register disclosure).
Purpose: Ensure simultaneous stakeholder access to financial reports for informed investment decisions...

Suggested Considerations

Review internal processes to ensure timely publication of the required announcement via appropriate channels (e.g., company website, regulatory platforms).
Integrate checklist into annual reporting workflow: Confirm announcement includes exact date and website; publish ≤4 months post-year-end and pre-report release.
Conduct gap analysis on WpHG disclosure compliance; train IR and compliance teams.
Monitor BaFin's enforcement trends and maintain audit trails for announcements (https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c_neu_124_WpHG/meldung_2026_03_31_tc_unterhaltungselektronik_ag_en.html?cms_expanded=true).

Key Dates

Four months after financial year

end; - Publish announcement stating date and website for annual financial information (e.g., for FY 2024 ending 31 Dec 2024, by 30 Apr 2025)

Before first public availability DEADLINE

- Announcement must precede online publication of reports (https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c_neu_124_WpHG/meldung_2026_03_31_tc_unterhaltungselektronik_ag_en.html?cms_expanded=true)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This matters as it demonstrates BaFin's active enforcement of disclosure rules, with a modest €15,000 fine signaling proportionality for first offenses but highlighting risks of escalation (max €10M or 5% revenue). Affected firms face reputational damage, investor scrutiny, and potential repeat fines; immediate process reviews are advisable ahead of Q1 2026 reporting cycles to avoid similar violations.

References

[1] mvise-group.de

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇬🇧 FCA News high

March 30th 2026

Millions of car finance customers to get payouts this year as FCA goes ahead with compensation scheme

Millions of motor finance customers will receive compensation this year under an FCA scheme for those treated unfairly by firms who broke the law by failing to disclose important information. Consumers were denied the chance to seek a better deal and, in some instances, paid more for their loan.The FCA has made several changes to the free to use scheme in response to conflicting feedback from consumers, their representatives, firms, manufacturers and industry bodies.This ensures it is fair fo...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintechAll Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Consumer Credit

🇩🇪 BaFin News high

March 30th 2026

Walnut Planet GmbH: evidence indicates no prospectus published

The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has evidence indicating that Walnut Planet GmbH, which has its registered office in Pfäffikon (Schwyz), Switzerland, is offering a capital investment that falls within the definition of “other investments” under section 1 (2) no. 7 of the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz - VermAnlG) to the public in Germany. The investment on offer consists of combined lease and service agreements relating to the cultivation of walnuts i...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇮🇪 CBI News

March 30th 2026

Central Bank of Ireland launches commemorative coin honouring playwright Seán O'Casey

Central Bank of Ireland today launched a commemorative coin celebrating the life and work of renowned Irish playwright Seán O'Casey, on what would have been his 146 th birthday. It marks the 100th anniversary of the inaugural performance of his masterpiece The Plough and the Stars at the Abbey Theatre. The silver proof coin will go on sale today (Monday 30 March 2026) at 1pm on www.collectorcoins.ie . Designed by PJ Lynch, there are just 3,000 coins available, and they will retail at €90. Gov...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇬🇧 FCA News high

March 30th 2026

Regulators launch joint taskforce to crack down on poor practice in motor finance claims

A new taskforce will tackle poor handling of motor finance claims by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms, after the FCA, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) agreed to join up their efforts. The announcement comes as the FCA prepares to set out its final compensation scheme for motor finance customers.The regulators will step up efforts to share intelligence and continue to take co-ordinated ...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintechAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

March 30th 2026

ECB streamlines how it supervises banks’ internal models

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

March 27th 2026

SEC Approves Amendment to NMS Plan to Further Reduce the Costs of the Consolidated Audit Trail

The Securities and Exchange Commission today approved an amendment to the National Market System Plan governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”) and provided exemptive relief from certain requirements of Rule 17a-1 under the Securities Exchange Act…

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇪🇺 ECB Enforcement critical

March 27th 2026

ECB sanctions BofA Securities Europe SA for breaching reporting requirements

No description available.

AI Analysis

The ECB imposed a €6.2 million penalty on BofA Securities Europe SA for intentionally breaching market risk reporting requirements between 2022 and 2024. The bank systematically underreported risk-weighted assets by including unauthorized sovereign bond option positions in its internal models, resulting in inflated capital ratios and misrepresented financial strength—a "severe" breach that signals the ECB's heightened enforcement focus on reporting accuracy and internal control governance.

What Changed

This enforcement action does not introduce new regulatory requirements but rather clarifies existing obligations:
Internal Models Scope Limitation: Banks must strictly adhere to supervisory permissions when applying internal models approaches; unauthorized asset classes cannot be included regardless of...
Risk-Weighted Asset Accuracy: RWA calculations must reflect actual supervisory permissions, not theoretical modeling capabilities
Capital Ratio Integrity: Misreporting of RWAs directly affects CET1 ratios and capital adequacy disclosures, which are fundamental to regulatory reporting
Intentionality Standard: The ECB's classification of this breach as "intentional" (rather than negligent) indicates that awareness of supervisory limitations combined with non-compliance triggers...

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate (for all firms with internal models):
*Audit Internal Models Scope: Conduct comprehensive review of all asset classes currently included in internal models approaches to confirm supervisory permission exists for each category
*Verify Sovereign Bond Derivatives Treatment: Specifically validate that all sovereign bond options, forwards, and other derivatives are explicitly covered by supervisory approval documentation
*Reconcile RWA Calculations: Recalculate historical RWAs (at minimum for the past 3-5 years) to identify any unauthorized inclusions and assess whether prior reporting was accurate
*Strengthen Internal Controls: Implement automated controls to prevent unauthorized asset classes from being included in model calculations, with documented supervisory permission matrices

Key Dates

AI Analysis

BaFin imposed a €1.65 million administrative fine on Barclays PLC on March 10, 2026, for failing to submit 26 voting rights notifications within the required four-trading-day deadline between June 2022 and March 2023. This enforcement action demonstrates BaFin's commitment to enforcing transparency requirements under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG) and highlights the critical importance of robust internal controls for voting rights notification compliance.

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

June 2022 – March 2023

Period during which Barclays failed to submit 26 notifications

March 10, 2026

Date BaFin imposed the €1.65 million fine

March 27, 2026

Publication date of BaFin enforcement announcement

Four trading days

Maximum period to submit notifications after threshold event occurs

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Market Abuse / Surveillance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇭🇰 SFC Speech

March 27th 2026

New speech by Kelvin Wong: Remarks at the Spring Dinner of the Institute of Securities Dealers

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

March 26th 2026

Circular CSSF-CPDI 26/50

Survey on the amount of covered deposits held on 31 March 2026

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF-CPDI 26/50 mandates a recurring annual survey on the amount of **covered deposits** held as of **31 March 2026** by specified Luxembourg credit institutions, to support the Fonds de garantie des dépôts Luxembourg (FGDL) in meeting Deposit Guarantee Scheme (DGS) requirements under the 2015 Law and DGSD. This matters for compliance as it ensures institutions contribute accurately to the FGDL's buffer (targeting 2% of covered deposits by 2026), with data also feeding into Single Resolution Board (SRB) calculations for resolution funding.

What Changed

This circular introduces no substantive changes to survey content, methodology, or reporting specifications compared to prior issuances (e.g., CSSF-CPDI 25/49 for 31 December 2025). Updates are limited to the reference date (31 March 2026) and associated deadlines, maintaining the risk-based ex-ante contribution method from Circular CSSF-CPDI 20/21 and quarterly reporting under CSSF-CPDI 17/07.

Suggested Considerations

Compile data on covered deposits (eligible deposits up to €100,000 per depositor, per Article 163 of 2015 Law), excluding items per Article 172 (e.g., financial institutions, life insurance).
Report detailed breakdowns: total eligible/covered deposits, omnibus/fiduciary accounts (with beneficiary counts), natural vs. legal persons, branch-level data.
Submit via specified format (per attached specs, unchanged from priors) to CPDI by deadline; quarterly data ongoing per CSSF-CPDI 17/07.
Ensure alignment with FGDL contributions under CSSF-CPDI 25/48.

Key Dates

31 March 2026

- Reference date for snapshot of covered deposits

30 April 2026 DEADLINE

(inferred from pattern in prior circulars like 25/49) - Likely submission deadline for survey data to CPDI (exact date in full PDF; aligns with one-month post-reference in predecessors)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Immediate action required today (publication date) to prepare for 31 March 2026 snapshot (just 5 days away), with submission likely due early May 2026. Non-compliance risks FGDL penalties, inaccurate contributions (impacting 0.8% extra buffer to 2% DGSD minimum), and SRB reporting failures under Regulation (EU) 2015/63; recurring nature demands robust quarterly data processes.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Insurance & Pensions Wealth & Private Banking Investment Management

🇬🇧 FCA policy_statement high

March 26th 2026

FCA responds to Complaint Commissioner’s report on the British Steel Pension Scheme

We sympathise with former members of the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) who lost money after they were given unsuitable advice from people they trusted. Complaints are a valuable source of feedback which help us improve and learn. There have also been 4 independent reports into the BSPS since 2018, which have helped us learn lessons. We have accepted several of their recommendations and implemented improvements, including those below.We now have much closer collaboration between the FCA,...

AI Analysis

The FCA's response to the Complaint Commissioner's report on the British Steel Pension Scheme addresses systemic failures in pension transfer advice that affected approximately 7,700 members, with 47% receiving unsuitable advice. This statement demonstrates the FCA's acknowledgment of regulatory shortcomings and outlines remedial measures implemented to prevent similar harm, including enhanced inter-agency collaboration, stricter product governance rules, and a £106 million redress scheme now benefiting 1,870 affected members.

What Changed

The FCA has implemented the following regulatory and operational changes in response to BSPS failures:
Enhanced inter-agency collaboration: Closer coordination between the FCA, The Pensions Regulator, Pension Protection Fund, and Money and Pensions Service to improve intelligence sharing on defined...
Data collection and monitoring: Expanded collection of pension transfer data from advisory firms to proactively identify emerging risks and market trends
Contingent charging ban: Prohibition of contingent charging arrangements for DB pension transfers to eliminate conflicts of interest where adviser compensation depends on transfer completion
Consumer transparency tool: Development of a self-assessment mechanism enabling consumers to identify whether they may have received unsuitable DB pension transfer advice

Suggested Considerations

*For firms that provided DB pension transfer advice:
*Conduct retrospective suitability reviews of all DB pension transfer advice provided, particularly during 2015-2018, identifying unsuitable recommendations
*Calculate and pay redress to affected customers to restore them to their pre-transfer financial position, with reference to the FSCS redress methodology
*Implement enhanced governance for DB pension transfer advice, including:
Documented suitability assessments with clear rationale

Key Dates

Late 2017

- FCA received initial intelligence about poor pension transfer advice quality

December 2018

- FCA published initial findings showing less than 50% of reviewed advice was suitable

May 2020

- FCA directed 45 firms to conduct suitability assessments (Past Business Reviews)

April 2022

- FCA imposed asset retention rules for DB pension transfers

April 2023

- BSPS redress scheme formally introduced, requiring firms to review advice suitability and pay redress

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Wealth ManagerAsset ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

March 26th 2026

Bank of England streamlines reporting and disclosure requirements for bank failure regime

The Bank of England and Prudential Regulation Authority have finalised a package of changes to firms’ resolution reporting and disclosure requirements which reduces the burden of regulation while maintaining a robust and credible regime that supports growth and competition.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth Manager

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

March 26th 2026

PS10/26 – Amendments to Resolution Assessment threshold and Recovery Plans review frequency

Policy statement 10/26

AI Analysis

PS10/26 finalizes PRA proposals to raise the Resolution Assessment threshold from £50 billion to £100 billion in retail deposits and reduce recovery plan review frequency for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs) from annually to biennially, enhancing proportionality in resolution and recovery frameworks post-financial crisis. These changes reduce regulatory burden on smaller firms while maintaining safety and soundness, directly supporting PRA objectives of competitiveness and growth. Compliance teams must assess scope changes immediately to align reporting and planning cycles.

What Changed

- Resolution Assessment Threshold: Increased from £50 billion to £100 billion in retail deposits, limiting reporting and disclosure requirements under the Resolution Assessment Part of the PRA...
Recovery Plans Review Frequency: For SDDTs and SDDT consolidation entities, reduced from at least annually to at least every two years, aiming for higher quality plans with less frequent reviews.
Rulebook and Guidance Updates: Amendments to Resolution Assessment Part (Appendix 2), Recovery Plans Part (Appendix 3), and Supervisory Statement SS9/17 – Recovery planning (Appendix 4); no...
PRA Review Commitment: Threshold will be reviewed periodically (e.g., after reporting cycles or significant changes), but not indexed to GDP or on a fixed schedule as some respondents suggested.

Suggested Considerations

Scope Assessment: Immediately review retail deposits as of 1 April 2026; firms newly in-scope (≥£100bn) await PRA communication on first report/disclosure dates and prepare accordingly.
Recovery Plans: SDDTs/SDDT groups update review cycles to biennial starting 1 April 2026; ensure plans meet SS9/17 standards for quality.
Reporting/Disclosure: In-scope firms align internal processes with Rulebook amendments (Appendices 2-4); test systems for new threshold.
Governance: Document compliance with updated frameworks; monitor for PRA threshold reviews and related PS9/26/PS11/26 implementations.
Monitoring: Track retail deposits quarterly to anticipate scope changes; engage PRA if nearing threshold.

Key Dates

1 April 2026

Effective date for PS10/26 changes, including new £100bn threshold and biennial recovery plan reviews for SDDTs

2 October 2026

Expected submission date for first Resolution Assessment reports for in-scope firms (as previously communicated by PRA)

11 June 2027

Expected publication date for first disclosures under amended threshold

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Effective 1 April 2026 (imminent from March 2026), with first reports due 2 October 2026; firms between £50-100bn retail deposits gain immediate burden relief (exiting scope), while largest firms face no new burdens but must confirm ongoing compliance. Matters due to proportionality aligning with PRA growth objectives, reducing costs for mid-tier banks/building societies amid economic pressures, but requires swift deposit recalibration to avoid inadvertent non-compliance.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

March 26th 2026

PS11/26 – Disclosure: resolvability resources, capital distribution constraints and the basis for firm Pillar 3 disclosure

Policy statement 11/26

AI Analysis

PS11/26 finalizes PRA rules enhancing Pillar 3 disclosures on resolvability resources (MREL), capital distribution constraints (CDCs), and disclosure basis for UK banks and building societies. It matters because it standardizes information to boost market discipline, user comparability, and confidence in orderly resolution, directly impacting financial stability and compliance reporting. No substantive changes from CP16/25 consultation, with minor clarifications only.

What Changed

- Standardized MREL disclosure templates: Replaces free-form disclosures with four new templates aligned to Basel BCBS TLAC formats (adapted for UK), expanding scope to more firms for consistency on...
Qualitative CDC narrative: Added to UK CC1 template for firms subject to CDCs, enabling market assessment of restriction impacts; removes obsolete Systemic Risk Buffer (SRB) disclosure post-O-SII...
Disclosure basis statement: Firms must specify their Pillar 3 regime (e.g., resolution entity, O-SII, large institution), frequency, and details like reference date, currency, LEI, accounting...
Minor amendments: Reflects HMT's revocation of CRR Article 92a; updates to Disclosure (CRR) and Reporting (CRR) Parts of PRA Rulebook, with semi-annual key metrics for certain firms.
No substantive policy changes post-consultation; costs/benefits assessment unchanged.

Suggested Considerations

Update Pillar 3 processes to use new MREL templates (Annex XXVII instructions), UK CC1 with CDC narrative, and basis statement (e.g., reference date, LEI, scope).
For CDC-subject firms: Prepare qualitative narrative on restriction impacts.
Ensure semi-annual disclosure of key metrics (Article 447 points a-g) where required.
Integrate into consolidated reporting for UK parents; test templates/instructions from appendices.
Review for alignment with broader CRR changes (e.g., Article 92a revocation).

Key Dates

17 March 2026

- PS11/26 and accompanying rule instruments (e.g., Disclosure (CRR) Instrument 2026) published

1 January 2027

- Policy effective date; rules apply from this date

H1 2027

- First disclosures under new policy published, covering period ending **31 December 2026** (annual/semi-annual as applicable)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Effective 1 January 2027 requires immediate template/system updates for H1 2027 disclosures (year-end 2026 data), with standardized formats limiting flexibility and raising non-compliance risks to market discipline objectives. Impacts reporting teams, resolution planning, and investor relations; proportional design minimizes burden but demands proactive gap analysis given no transition grace beyond effective date.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement medium

March 26th 2026

PS9/26 – Resolution planning: Amendments to MREL reporting templates

Policy statement 9/26

AI Analysis

PS9/26 finalizes targeted amendments to MREL reporting templates, including changes to MRL001 and MRL003 data elements and the deletion of MRL002, reducing reporting burdens while maintaining resolution planning oversight. This matters for compliance teams as it streamlines processes under the PRA's Future Banking Data programme, with implementation from 1 January 2027, enabling firms to reallocate resources efficiently.

What Changed

- Amendments to data elements in the MREL resources template (MRL001) and MREL debt template (MRL003), with full deletion of the MREL resources forecast template (MRL002).
Consequential updates to reporting instructions (Appendix 2) and Supervisory Statement SS19/13 (Appendix 3), including relocation of instrument scope descriptions to reporting instructions for...
No changes to quarterly reporting frequency for MRL001/MRL003, despite industry requests for semi-annual alignment, to ensure monitoring of loss-absorbing capacity.
PRA to publish updated reporting taxonomy shortly.

Suggested Considerations

Review and update internal reporting systems to incorporate revised MRL001/MRL003 templates and deleted MRL002 by 1 January 2027.
Implement updated reporting instructions and SS19/13 amendments, including clarified scope of instruments in MRL templates.
Prepare for Q4 2026 data submission in February 2027 using new taxonomy (to be published shortly by PRA).
For firms with deleted COREP13 templates, cease submissions from April 2026 cycle.
Conduct gap analysis against SS19/13 changes and test processes for quarterly MREL reporting continuity.

Key Dates

1 April 2026

- Partial revocation of UKTS 2018/1624 (COREP13), deleting certain templates ahead of April 2026 cycle for period ending 31 December 2025

1 April 2026 DEADLINE

- PS10/26 effective (related: Resolution Assessment threshold amendments, reports due 2 October 2026)

1 January 2027 DEADLINE

- Revised MRL001 and MRL003 templates effective; first submissions of 2026 Q4 data (ending 31 December 2026) due in **February 2027**

1 January 2027

- PS11/26 effective (related: disclosures from 2027 H1 for period ending 31 December 2026)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – Changes reduce burden (net simplification, ~25% per industry feedback) but require system updates before 1 January 2027 submissions; non-compliance risks resolution planning scrutiny, though lead time mitigates immediate pressure. Matters for maintaining accurate MREL monitoring amid PRA's FBD efficiency drive.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

March 26th 2026

Schaeffler AG: BaFin imposes administrative fine

On 4 March 2026, BaFin imposed an administrative fine amounting to 180,000 euros on Schaeffler AG on the grounds that the company had violated the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). The fact that financial results for the first quarter of 2024 deviated significantly from market expectations should, as insider information, have been made transparent by the company without delay.

AI Analysis

BaFin imposed a €180,000 administrative fine on Schaeffler AG on 4 March 2026 for violating Article 17(1) of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) by failing to promptly disclose insider information about Q1 2024 financial results that significantly deviated from market expectations. This enforcement action underscores BaFin's strict enforcement of ad hoc disclosure obligations for listed companies, serving as a reminder that delays in publishing inside information can lead to substantial penalties and undermine market integrity. Compliance teams must prioritize robust inside information monitoring to avoid similar sanctions, as fines can reach up to €2.5 million or 2% of total revenue.

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

Q1 2024 (exact date unspecified)

- Schaeffler AG's financial results deviated significantly from market expectations, triggering ad hoc disclosure obligation

4 March 2026

- BaFin imposed the €180,000 administrative fine on Schaeffler AG for MAR violation

26 March 2026

- BaFin publicly announced the enforcement action

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This enforcement reaffirms longstanding MAR obligations rather than introducing new rules, but it signals BaFin's active use of fines (up to €2.5M or 2% revenue) for disclosure delays, particularly relevant for earnings seasons. It matters for listed firms as it demonstrates low tolerance for lapses in volatile markets, potentially increasing supervisory scrutiny and reputational risk; non-compliance erodes investor trust and exposes firms to appeals processes or escalated penalties.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

March 25th 2026

Circular CSSF 26/908

Amendment of Circular CSSF 18/703 on the introduction of a semi-annual reporting of borrower related residential real estate indicators

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 26/908 amends Circular CSSF 18/703 to update semi-annual reporting requirements for borrower-related residential real estate indicators, enhancing supervisory oversight of credit risk in Luxembourg's financial sector. Published today (25 March 2026), it matters for credit institutions as it refines data collection to better monitor real estate lending exposures amid potential market vulnerabilities.

What Changed

The circular introduces amendments to the original Circular CSSF 18/703 (itself amended by Circulars CSSF 20/737 and 21/772), focusing on semi-annual reporting of indicators tied to borrowers in residential real estate. Specific changes are not detailed in the provided summary or full content excerpt, but they likely involve refinements to reporting templates, data granularity, or submission processes to align with evolving EU prudential standards on real estate risk monitoring. The updated consolidated version of Circular CSSF 18/703 is now available as a 258.91Kb PDF.

Suggested Considerations

Download and review the full Circular CSSF 26/908 (291.96Kb PDF) and the updated consolidated Circular CSSF 18/703 (258.91Kb PDF) from the CSSF website: https://www.cssf.lu/en/Document/circular-cssf-26-908/.
Conduct a gap analysis of current reporting processes against the amended requirements for borrower-related residential real estate indicators.
Update internal systems, data collection templates, and reporting workflows to ensure accurate semi-annual submissions to the CSSF.
Train relevant compliance, risk, and finance teams on changes; document compliance confirmations for audit trails.

Key Dates

17 December 2018

- Original issuance of Circular CSSF 18/703 introducing semi-annual reporting

25 March 2026

- Publication date of Circular CSSF 26/908 (today)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - This is a targeted amendment to existing reporting obligations rather than a new regime, reducing immediate disruption, but non-compliance risks supervisory scrutiny, fines, or enhanced monitoring given CSSF's focus on real estate risk. It matters for maintaining accurate credit risk data, especially in a potentially volatile residential property market, supporting broader prudential stability.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇭🇰 SFC News high

March 25th 2026

SFC obtains court order to freeze assets worth up to $219 million belonging to suspected manipulators of KNT shares

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Mortgage & Lending Banking & Credit Consumer Credit

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

March 25th 2026

Technical FAQ on CSSF Regulation No 20-08 on borrower-based measures for residential real estate credit (track changes) (Updated)

Version of 9 March 2026

AI Analysis

The CSSF Technical FAQ on Regulation No 20-08 provides implementation guidance on **loan-to-value (LTV) limits for residential real estate credit in Luxembourg**, establishing borrower-based macroprudential measures designed to limit leverage in the mortgage market. This guidance is critical for lenders operating in Luxembourg as it clarifies how to calculate own funds, determine LTV compliance, and apply temporary portfolio exemptions that have been extended through June 30, 2025.

What Changed

The most recent update (March 9, 2026) to the Technical FAQ reflects the regulatory framework established by CSSF Regulation No 20-08 (as modified by Regulation No 24-10).
First-time buyers: LTV limit of up to 100%
Other buyers: LTV limit of 90%, implemented via portfolio allowance Buy-to-Let Residential Loans:
Standard LTV limit of 80%
Temporary exemption (until June 30, 2025): Lenders may apply LTV ratios up to 95% for up to 10% of annual production Other Residential Real Estate Loans:

Suggested Considerations

*For all lenders:
*Verify LTV compliance calculations for all new residential mortgage originations using the framework specified in the FAQ, ensuring own funds are calculated as actual equity contributions from borrowers
*Implement dual LTV tracking for borrowers financing new property through sale of existing property, ensuring compliance with both interim and final LTV ratios
*Document own funds sources carefully, particularly when cash collateral or sale proceeds are used, as these are only permitted for loans with initial LTV below 100%
*Prepare for June 30, 2025 transition by:

Key Dates

December 3, 2020

- CSSF Regulation No 20-08 originally published

January 1, 2021

- Regulation and LTV limits became effective for residential real estate credit on Luxembourg territory

May 21, 2024

- CSSF Regulation No 24-04 introduced temporary adjustments to LTV limits

December 30, 2024

- CSSF Regulation No 24-10 extended temporary adjustments

January 7, 2025

- Most recent Technical FAQ version published (prior to March 9, 2026 update)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintech

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

March 25th 2026

Circular CSSF 18/703 (as amended by Circulars CSSF 20/737, 21/772 and 26/908) (Updated)

on the introduction of a semi-annual reporting of borrower-related residential real estate indicators

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 18/703 introduces semi-annual reporting requirements for Luxembourg-based lenders on borrower-related residential real estate (RRE) indicators to monitor macroprudential risks in the RRE lending market, in line with ESRB Recommendation 2016/14 (as amended). It matters for compliance because it mandates data collection via a dedicated CSSF template, with exclusions only for banks below EUR 10 million in outstanding RRE exposures, ensuring supervisory oversight of lending standards. The circular has been iteratively amended (CSSF 20/737, 21/772, 26/908), with the latest update on 25 March 2026 refining reporting processes.

What Changed

- Original Scope (CSSF 18/703, 17 Dec 2018): Requires semi-annual reporting of RRE indicators for loans secured by Luxembourg residential real estate (existing dwellings, under construction,...
Amendment CSSF 20/737 (19 Feb 2020): Clarified reporting thresholds and processes; banks with total outstanding RRE exposure ≤ EUR 10 million are exempt from reporting (no zero report needed if no...
FAQ (19 Feb 2020): Specifies reporting for new exposures (Jan-Jun or Jul-Dec) and outstanding exposures as of 30 June/31 Dec; exemption applies only if exposure < EUR 10 million.
Amendment CSSF 21/772 (10 May 2021): Further refinements to data template and indicators.
Amendment CSSF 26/908 (25 Mar 2026): Latest update to reporting template and processes, effective immediately given publication date. Data is collected via a CSSF template on the website, focusing on...

Suggested Considerations

Download and use the dedicated RRE data template from the CSSF website (https://www.cssf.lu/en/Document/circular-cssf-18-703/).
Assess total outstanding RRE exposure; if > EUR 10 million, collect data on new/outstanding exposures per reference dates (30 Jun/31 Dec).
Ensure IT systems store/process RRE indicators (e.g., borrower debt metrics, collateral details) for semi-annual extraction.
Submit reports to CSSF in April/October; review amendments (20/737, 21/772, 26/908) and FAQ for updates.
For exempt banks: Confirm eligibility annually; no zero report required.

Key Dates

17 Dec 2018

Original Circular CSSF 18/703 published; reporting obligation introduced

19 Feb 2020

Circular CSSF 20/737 and FAQ published; clarified exemptions and scope

10 May 2021

Circular CSSF 21/772 amendment published

25 Mar 2026

Circular CSSF 26/908 amendment published (today's date); immediate implementation expected for upcoming cycles

Ongoing (semi DEADLINE

annual); Reports due in April (ref. 31 Dec) and October (ref. 30 Jun) each year

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Ongoing semi-annual obligation with latest amendment today (25 Mar 2026, CSSF 26/908) likely affects the next October 2026 cycle (ref. 30 Jun 2026); non-compliance risks supervisory sanctions, as it supports macroprudential monitoring under ESRB framework. Firms must validate systems/data immediately post-amendment to avoid gaps in reporting population.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇺🇸 CFTC News medium

March 24th 2026

CFTC Staff Amends Brexit-Related No-Action Positions for Additional UK Trading Facilities

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

March 24th 2026

CSSF Newsletter No 302 – March 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 BoE Enforcement high

March 24th 2026

PRA fines The Bank of London and its parent company Oplyse Holdings Limited £2m for failing to act with integrity and misleading the PRA over their capital position

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has fined The Bank of London Group Limited and Oplyse Holdings Limited (formerly The Bank of London Group Holdings Limited) £2 million for misleading the PRA over their capital positions, failing to act with integrity, failing to be open and cooperative with the regulator and failing to maintain adequate financial resources.

AI Analysis

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) fined The Bank of London Group Limited and its parent Oplyse Holdings Limited £2 million (reduced from £12 million due to financial hardship) for serious breaches including misleading the regulator with fabricated documents on capital positions, failing to act with integrity, lacking openness, and breaching capital and large exposure rules from October 2021 to May 2024. This marks the PRA's first enforcement for integrity failures and first action against a parent holding company, signaling heightened scrutiny on governance, reporting accuracy, and parent-subsidiary accountability in UK banking. Compliance professionals should note this as a precedent reinforcing zero tolerance for deceptive practices, with potential for escalated penalties absent settlement or hardship claims.

What Changed

This enforcement action does not introduce new rules but enforces existing PRA requirements with landmark application:
First PRA fine for breaching Fundamental Rule 1 (conduct business with integrity), highlighting fabrication of documents as a core violation.
First enforcement against a parent financial holding company (Oplyse Holdings), extending liability to group entities for capital reporting and related party exposures.
Emphasizes strict adherence to Fundamental Rules 3, 4, and 7 (prudence, adequate resources, openness), CRR reporting (e.g., own funds on individual/consolidated basis), Large Exposures rules...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct capital position audits to verify CRR reporting accuracy (individual and consolidated own funds) and remediate any discrepancies.
Review intra-group exposures for large exposure limits (Articles 393-395), related party transactions (Rules 2.1/2.3), and notification obligations.
Enhance governance controls for integrity (Fundamental Rule 1), including document fabrication prevention, timely solvency disclosures (Fundamental Rule 7), and prudent management (Fundamental Rule 3).
Stress-test parent-subsidiary interactions and ensure openness with PRA on deteriorating positions.
Update training on PRA enforcement policies (PS1/24) and bank supervision (SS3/21).

Key Dates

Broker DealerFintechCrypto Exchange

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

March 23rd 2026

a.i.s. AG: BaFin imposes administrative fine

On 3 March 2026, BaFin imposed an administrative fine amounting to €25,000 on a.i.s. AG. The company had contravened obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). It had failed to publish its half-yearly financial report for the financial year 2025.

AI Analysis

BaFin imposed a €25,000 administrative fine on a.i.s. AG on 3 March 2026 for failing to publish its half-yearly financial report for FY 2025, violating disclosure obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). This enforcement action underscores BaFin's strict enforcement of periodic reporting requirements for issuers on organized markets, serving as a reminder that even partial non-compliance (e.g., missing minimum components) triggers penalties, with potential fines up to €10 million or 5% of revenue. Compliance teams must prioritize robust reporting processes to mitigate similar risks.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement precedent under existing WpHG rules. Key requirements reaffirmed include: issuers domiciled in Germany with securities on organized markets must publish half-yearly financial reports within three months after period-end, containing specific minimum components (e.g., net assets, financial position, results, outlook, risks, opportunities)[BaFin publication]. BaFin views omission of any minimum component as full non-publication, warranting fines.

Suggested Considerations

Implement automated monitoring and reminders for half-yearly reporting deadlines, ensuring all minimum components (net assets, financial position, results, outlook, risks/opportunities) are included.
Establish compliance function per WpHG Sections 80/87 and MaComp: conduct risk assessments, maintain documentation, and report to management/BaFin.
For issuers: Use prescribed channels (e.g., Unternehmensregister) for publication; test processes via internal audits.
Train staff on WpHG disclosure rules, including ad-hoc and periodic obligations, with insider list maintenance and blackout periods.
Reconcile reports for accuracy, as BaFin scrutinizes completeness.

Key Dates

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News

March 20th 2026

Development of the bank's balance sheet total

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

March 20th 2026

Quarterly development of employment in banks

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News high

March 19th 2026

Bank Rate maintained at 3.75% - March 2026 Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is responsible for making decisions about Bank Rate.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇩🇪 BaFin News high

March 19th 2026

High Performance Battery Holding AG: grounds to suspect shares being offered to the public without the required securities prospectus

The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has sufficient grounds to suspect that High Performance Battery Holding AG, Switzerland, is offering securities in the form of company shares to the public in Germany without the required prospectus. There are no indications that the conditions for exemption from the prospectus requirement are met.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

March 18th 2026

Crowdfunding: the AMF reminds platforms of their complaint handling obligations

Asset management Crowdfunding: the AMF reminds platforms of their complaint handling obligations

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA News low

March 18th 2026

SEC confirms exemption for directors and officers of EEA Foreign Private Issuers

SEC confirms exemption for directors and officers of EEA Foreign Private Issuers 18 March 2026 Market Abuse Post Trading The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided to exempt directors and officers of European Economic Area (EEA) foreign private issuers (FPIs) from the reporting requirements under Section 16(a) of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC’s decision means that directors and officers of EEA FPIs will not be required to comply with these specifi...

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Crypto & Digital Assets

🇬🇧 FCA News high

March 18th 2026

FCA confirms new incident and third party rules to bolster resilience

We’ve confirmed new rules to make existing incident and third party reporting clearer, more consistent, and easier for firms to follow. These new rules will help us respond quickly to disruption such as a cyber attack or power outage, give firms greater certainty on what to report and when and strengthen firm resilience to better protect consumers and markets.Cyber attacks are becoming more frequent and more sophisticated, and firms are increasingly reliant on third party providers. In 2025, ...

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankFintechCrypto Exchange

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

March 18th 2026

PS7/26 – Operational resilience: Operational incident and third-party reporting

Policy statement 7/26

AI Analysis

PS7/26 finalizes PRA rules for standardized reporting of operational incidents and material third-party (MTP) arrangements, responding to CP17/24 consultation feedback by reducing firm burden through simplified templates and exclusions. This matters for compliance professionals as it enhances PRA oversight of operational resilience risks amid rising threats and third-party reliance, aligning with international standards like DORA and FSB FIRE while supporting identification of critical third parties (CTPs).

What Changed

- MTP Reporting: Amended notification rule for clarity; scope excludes credit unions with <£50m assets and all third-country branches; separated register and notification templates with reduced data...
Operational Incident Reporting: Merged three-phased reports (initial, interim, final) into one simplified, aligned template across PRA/FCA/Bank; removed fields, made more optional; clarified...
Guidance Enhancements: Updated SS2/21 with MTP identification examples; SS1/26 clarifies threshold interpretation, early-stage assessments, and systemic impact expectations.
Alignment: Full harmonization with FCA/Bank and international standards (DORA, FSB FIRE). | Aspect | CP17/24 Proposal | PS7/26 Final Policy | |--------|------------------|---------------------| |...

Suggested Considerations

Identify and notify MTP arrangements via FCA Connect (excluding exemptions); maintain annual register with reduced fields.
Monitor/assess operational incidents against clarified thresholds (e.g., contagion, reputation); submit single report if met, within specified timelines.
Update policies per SS1/26 (thresholds) and SS2/21 (MTP identification).
Align reporting with PRA/FCA/Bank templates; use data for resilience prioritization.
For insurers: Integrate with ongoing operational resilience post-SS1/21 milestone (31 March 2025).

Key Dates

December 2024

- CP17/24 consultation published

H1 2026

- Final PRA/FCA rules on operational incident and third-party reporting effective (per industry analysis)

30 working days post

incident resolution; - Submit final incident report update (extendable to 60 working days in complex cases)

Annual

- MTP register reporting (exact date not specified; aligns with notifications)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Mandates new reporting infrastructure and processes amid rising operational threats; non-compliance risks supervisory action on resilience vulnerabilities. Reduced burden from CP mitigates costs, but timely implementation critical for PRA oversight and CTP identification; benefits (e.g., thematic analysis) outweigh costs per PRA.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankInsuranceAll Firms

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇬🇧 PRA Guidance high

March 18th 2026

SS1/26 – Operational resilience: Incident reporting

Supervisory statement 1/26

AI Analysis

SS1/26 outlines the PRA's expectations for firms to report operational incidents via a structured three-phase process (initial, intermediate, final) as mandated in the PRA Rulebook's Regulatory Reporting Part, Chapter 24, to enhance UK financial sector resilience by capturing incidents risking firm safety, policyholder protection, or stability. This matters because it standardizes reporting, enabling timely PRA oversight and reducing inconsistencies in incident data collection across regulated entities.

What Changed

- Introduces clear reporting thresholds in Regulatory Reporting Rule 24.2: Firms must report if an incident poses risks to UK financial stability, firm safety/soundness, or (for insurers)...
Mandates a phased reporting approach (Rule 24.1-24.4): Initial report as soon as practicable (expected within 24 hours of threshold determination); intermediate updates for significant changes (e.g.,...
Excludes near-misses (potential events without disruption/data loss to external users); aligns with but does not replace Fundamental Rule 7 or Notification Part Chapter 2 obligations.
Specifies reporting via a "Reporting Fields Document"; firms balance reporting with incident resolution.

Suggested Considerations

Assess incidents against PRA thresholds (e.g., risk to stability/soundness/policyholders, considering contagion, disruptions > thresholds, data loss, media impact); report if met, even if internally high-priority.
Submit phased reports using specified fields: Initial (basic details promptly); Intermediate (updates on changes like impact, strategy shifts, resolution); Final (full details post-resolution).
Maintain processes for prompt classification, data gathering, and submission while prioritizing resolution; continue ad-hoc supervisory notifications if needed.
Review internal policies to align severity ratings with PRA thresholds; document assessments.
For critical third-party (CTP) incidents, both firms and CTPs report uniquely.

Key Dates

18 March 2026

- Publication date of SS1/26

18 March 2027 DEADLINE

- Effective date; firms must comply with reporting requirements

Within 24 hours

- Expected submission of initial phase report after determining threshold met (as soon as practicable)

Each significant change

- Intermediate phase update(s), including at resolution

Within 30 working days of resolution

- Final phase report (extendable to 60 working days if impracticable)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – With effectiveness just over one year away (18 March 2027), firms must urgently map incident management frameworks to new thresholds/phases, update policies, train staff, and test reporting (e.g., via simulations), as non-compliance risks enforcement under PRA rules and heightened scrutiny on resilience amid rising cyber/operational threats. This elevates operational resilience from preparation (e.g., IMT testing by March 2025) to active reporting, demanding integrated tech/governance upgrades.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsuranceAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

March 18th 2026

Circular letter

Latest update on the AML/CFT standardised data collection

AI Analysis

This CSSF circular letter addresses the 2026 AML/CFT standardised data collection exercise, aligning with AMLA's EU-wide initiatives by adopting AMLA-developed templates for most supervised entities while requiring specialised professionals to use CSSF-specific forms. It matters for Luxembourg financial firms as it mandates reporting on ML/TF risks and mitigation measures to support consistent EU supervision, with recent delays emphasizing preparation needs amid evolving templates.

What Changed

- CSSF adopts AMLA-developed data collection templates for credit institutions, investment firms, and investment fund managers (excluding specialised professionals), replacing its prior questionnaire...
Entities selected for AMLA's mandatory calibration exercise (notified directly by CSSF) must report quantitative and qualitative ML/TF risk data; non-selected entities still report via AMLA templates...
Launch delayed from 2 March 2026 due to AMLA's consultation feedback on templates and guidance; new timelines and final questionnaire to be announced, but AMLA maintains 15 April 2026 submission for...
Specialised professionals of the financial sector complete a separate CSSF questionnaire, launching earlier on 23 February 2026 (subject to delay).

Suggested Considerations

Monitor CSSF communications for final questionnaire, launch dates, and eDesk access; prepare data on 2025 ML/TF risks and mitigation using current AMLA draft (not for submission).
Selected AMLA calibration participants: Compile and submit quantitative/qualitative data via eDesk by 15 April 2026; attend 13 March webinar.
Non-selected credit/financial institutions: Complete AMLA templates on ML/TF risks/mitigation for 2025 via eDesk upon launch.
Specialised professionals: Prepare CSSF-specific questionnaire ahead of (delayed) 23 February launch.
All: Ensure resources for timely reporting; review internal AML/CFT risk assessments for consistency with EU standards.

Key Dates

23 February 2026

- Planned launch for specialised professionals' CSSF questionnaire (delayed per 11 March update)

2 March 2026

AI Analysis

This FINRA Information Notice announces an SEC-mandated increase in the Section 31 fee rate from $0.00 to $20.60 per million dollars of specified securities transactions, effective April 4, 2026, reversing a prior zero-rate period. It matters because FINRA member firms will face renewed fee assessments on exchange and OTC trades, requiring immediate systems updates and budgeting adjustments ahead of the short implementation timeline. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20260317[original notice]

What Changed

- Section 31 Fee Rate Increase: The rate for specified securities transactions on exchanges and OTC markets rises from $0.00 to $20.60 per million dollars in transactions, based on trade date (not...
Security Futures Unchanged: The assessment remains at $0.0042 per round turn transaction.[original notice]
FINRA Collection Mechanism: Fees are collected from member firms per Section 3 of Schedule A to FINRA By-Laws, aligned with SEC adjustments under Section 31 of the Exchange Act, following SEC...
This follows a prior decrease to $0.00 effective May 14, 2025 (from $27.80), showing annual volatility in rates.

Suggested Considerations

Systems/Processes Update: Adjust billing, trading, and reporting systems to apply the new rate to transactions with trade dates ≥ April 4, 2026; confirm "charge date" uses trade date per 17 CFR 240.31(a)(3).[original notice]
Budgeting/Financial Planning: Forecast and reserve for fee liabilities based on projected transaction volumes; contact Amanda Rath for finance queries.[original notice]
Legal Review: Consult Robert McNamee or Faisal Sheikh for interpretive questions; review By-Laws Schedule A Section 3.[original notice]
Customer Disclosure: If passing fees to clients, ensure compliant disclosures (as reminded in prior notices).
Monitor SEC: Check SEC website for further notices on rates.[original notice]

Key Dates

February 27, 2026

- SEC Fee Rate Advisory #2 for FY 2026 announced, setting new rate.[original notice]

March 17, 2026

- FINRA Information Notice published.[original notice]

April 4, 2026

- Effective date; new $20.60 rate applies to trades with charge date (trade date) on or after this date. Current $0.00 rate applies through April 3, 2026.[original notice]

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - With only ~2.5 weeks from publication (March 17) to effective date (April 4, 2026), firms risk non-compliance, underbilling, or financial shortfalls if systems aren't updated promptly. This is critical for high-volume traders, as fees scale with transaction dollars, potentially adding significant costs post-zero-rate period; missing the trade-date trigger could lead to disputes or penalties. Historical patterns show frequent adjustments (e.g., 2025 drop to $0.00), demanding agile compliance processes.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

March 18th 2026

ASIC launches financial complaints data dashboard

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

March 18th 2026

aap Implantate AG: BaFin imposes administrative fine

On 3 March 2026, BaFin imposed an administrative fine amounting to 158,000 euros on aap Implantate AG. The company had contravened an obligation under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). aap Implantate AG failed to publish an announcement about the date from which and the website where its 2024 half-yearly financial report was made publicly available.

AI Analysis

BaFin imposed a €158,000 administrative fine on aap Implantate AG on 3 March 2026 for failing to publish a required announcement under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG) specifying the date and website for its 2024 half-yearly financial report. This enforcement action underscores BaFin's strict enforcement of transparency obligations for issuers, highlighting the need for robust processes to ensure timely public notifications of financial report availability to enable equal access for investors. It matters because it demonstrates BaFin's willingness to levy significant fines (up to €10 million or 5% of revenue) for procedural lapses in disclosure, signaling heightened scrutiny on reporting compliance amid ongoing WpHG/MAR implementations.

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

30 September 2024 DEADLINE

- Deadline for H1 2024 half-yearly report announcement (three months after period end, i.e., 30 June 2024); aap Implantate AG violated by not publishing before report availability

3 March 2026

- Date BaFin imposed €158,000 fine on aap Implantate AG

18 March 2026

- BaFin public announcement of the enforcement action. https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/Bilko/Massnahmen/meldung_2026_03_18_aap_Implantate_AG_en.html?cms_expanded=true

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - This is a targeted enforcement on a procedural disclosure failure, but BaFin's fine (well below max but substantial for the firm) signals zero tolerance for transparency breaches, especially post-MAR/MiFID II. It matters for issuers as it risks investor confidence, market abuse probes, and escalating fines; compliance teams must prioritize automation and controls amid BaFin's data quality reviews and MaComp updates to avoid similar actions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Insurance & Pensions

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

March 18th 2026

aap Implantate AG: Bafin imposes administrative fine

On 3 March 2026, Bafin imposed an administrative fine amounting to 158,000 euros on aap Implantate AG. The company had contravened an obligation under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). aap Implantate AG failed to publish an announcement about the date from which and the website where its 2024 half-yearly financial report was made publicly available.

AI Analysis

BaFin has imposed an administrative fine of **EUR 158,000** on aap Implantate AG for breaching Section 115(1) sentence 2 WpHG by failing to publish a mandatory announcement specifying the date and website where its 2024 half‑yearly financial report would be made publicly available. This enforcement action underscores that German issuers on organised markets must not only prepare and file periodic reports, but also comply with strict **pre‑publication announcement** and timing requirements, with non‑compliance exposing firms to material monetary sanctions of up to EUR 10 million or 5% of total revenue.

What Changed

- Issuers domiciled in Germany with securities admitted to trading on an organised market in Germany must publish an announcement specifying when and on which website their half‑yearly financial...
The announcement must be published no later than three months after the end of the reporting period and before the half‑yearly financial report is made publicly available for the first time.
Failure to publish this announcement constitutes a contravention of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG) and can be sanctioned by BaFin via administrative fines.
BaFin has clarified in practice that fines for such failures can be significant, with the legal maximum set at EUR 10 million or up to 5% of total revenue.
The case confirms that BaFin will actively monitor compliance with periodic financial reporting announcement requirements, not just the underlying financial statements themselves.

Suggested Considerations

Map all WpHG periodic reporting obligations (annual, half‑yearly, and any quarterly reports) and explicitly include the announcement requirement for timing and website disclosure in the firm’s reporting calendar and compliance framework.
Implement a documented pre‑publication announcement process that ensures an announcement is drafted, approved, and published no later than three months after the end of each reporting period and before the relevant report is first made publicly available.
Update internal disclosure controls and procedures to treat the announcement as a mandatory regulatory disclosure, with clear ownership assigned to legal/compliance and investor relations teams.
Configure internal reporting and IT systems so that the company website hosting financial reports and the Company Register disclosure are coordinated with the timing of the announcement, avoiding publication of the report before the announcement has been made.
Review and update WPHG compliance policies and board‑approved disclosure policies to reference Section 115(1) sentence 2 WpHG and the requirement to announce the date and internet address of half‑yearly financial reports.

Key Dates

No later than three months after end of each reporting period (e.g. by 30 September 2024 for a 30 June 2024 half‑year) DEADLINE

– Deadline by which the issuer must publish the announcement stating when and where the half‑yearly financial report will be made publicly available on the internet

Before first public availability date of the half‑yearly report (2024) DEADLINE

The Prudential Regulation Authority has today published proposals aimed at ensuring banks can monetise liquid assets quickly in a fast-paced stress event – such as the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023.

AI Analysis

The PRA has launched a three-month consultation on modernized liquidity standards designed to ensure banks can rapidly convert liquid assets to cash during stress events, responding directly to lessons from the 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse. Rather than requiring banks to hold more liquid assets, the reforms focus on **operationalizing existing liquidity** through enhanced stress testing, removal of exemptions for sovereign bonds, and improved preparedness for central bank facility access.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

March 17th 2026

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/613 of 16 March 2026

implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

March 17th 2026

Development of the balance sheet total and provisional net results of specialised PFS

Situation as at 31 January 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

March 17th 2026

Development of the balance sheet total and provisional net results of support PFS

Situation as at 31 January 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

March 17th 2026

Special Notice – 3/17/26

FINRA publishes Notices to provide firms with timely information on a variety of issues. To obtain a Notice published prior to 1995, please contact FINRA MediaSource at (240) 386-4200.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇺🇸 SEC Consultation high

March 16th 2026

SEC Proposes Amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, which sets out certain information gathering and review requirements for broker-dealers that publish quotations for, or maintain a continuous quoted market in…

AI Analysis

The SEC is proposing amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, which governs broker-dealer quotation requirements in OTC markets outside national securities exchanges, aiming to update information review standards for enhanced investor protection. This matters for compliance professionals as it could impose stricter due diligence on broker-dealers quoting OTC securities, building on 2020 amendments amid ongoing fixed income implementation challenges, potentially reducing fraud in retail-heavy OTC markets. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-28-sec-proposes-amendments-exchange-act-rule-15c2-11

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

TBD (post

Federal Register publication) - Proposed comment period closes; SEC seeks input on amendments.; (Inferred from "consultation" type; exact date not in summary.) https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-28-sec-proposes-amendments-exchange-act-rule-15c2-11

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Builds on enforced 2020/2021 changes with fixed income phases expired (Phase 3 active since 2024), pressuring broker-dealers on ongoing quotes amid SEC scrutiny; proposals could tighten "publicly available" standards or exceptions, risking enforcement for non-compliant OTC activity in fraud-prone markets. Matters as OTC is retail-dominated, amplifying gatekeeper liability; operational overhauls needed now to avoid quoting halts.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement high

March 16th 2026

SEC Announces Enforcement Division Director Judge Margaret A. Ryan Has Resigned From Agency

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Judge Margaret A. Ryan has resigned from her role as Director of the Division of Enforcement. Principal Deputy Director Sam Waldon has been named Acting Director of the Division, effective March…

AI Analysis

Judge Margaret A. Ryan, who assumed the role of SEC Enforcement Division Director in August 2025 and signaled a significant recalibration of enforcement priorities toward fraud and market integrity while reducing enforcement actions for technical violations, has resigned from the agency. Principal Deputy Director Sam Waldon has been named Acting Director, creating immediate uncertainty regarding continuity of the enforcement approach that was just articulated in February 2026 and may signal a shift in the SEC's enforcement trajectory going forward.

What Changed

The resignation itself does not constitute a regulatory change, but it creates operational uncertainty regarding the enforcement priorities and procedural reforms that Director Ryan had recently...
Reduced enforcement for technical violations: Director Ryan had signaled that routine violations concerning reporting requirements, recordkeeping, and internal accounting controls should not...
"Middle ground" approach: For non-fraud violations posing investor or market integrity risks, the Division was to pursue resolutions emphasizing remediation over punishment.
Continued fraud focus: The Division was to maintain rigorous enforcement on fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, and scams targeting retail investors. Enforcement Manual Updates (Effective...
Four-week timeline for post-Wells meetings with senior leadership (Associate Director level or above)

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate (Next 30 Days):
*Monitor Acting Director's statements: Compliance teams should closely track any public remarks or guidance from Acting Director Sam Waldon regarding enforcement priorities and procedural expectations.
*Assess Wells submissions in progress: For entities with pending Wells submissions, evaluate whether the change in leadership creates opportunities to supplement submissions or request expedited meetings under the four-week timeline.
*Review investigation status: Entities in early-stage investigations should assess whether the leadership transition may affect investigation trajectory or resolution opportunities.
*Update compliance calendars: Ensure all enforcement-related deadlines and procedural requirements under the updated Enforcement Manual remain tracked and current.

Key Dates

February 11, 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

March 16th 2026

GBP LDI Funds Reporting Template (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇸🇬 MAS Guidance critical

March 16th 2026

ID 05/26 Issuance of Revised Notice 133 and Notice FHC-N133

Informs insurers on the amendments of Notice 133 and Notice FHC-N133 to include the proposed introduction of equity counter-cyclical adjustment (CCA), and the capital treatment for structured products and infrastructure investments, amongst others.

AI Analysis

MAS has issued revised Notice 133 and Notice FHC-N133 effective immediately (16 March 2026), introducing **equity counter-cyclical adjustment (CCA)** and new capital treatment rules for **structured products and infrastructure investments**. This represents a material enhancement to Singapore's risk-based capital (RBC 2) framework for all licensed insurers and designated financial holding companies with insurance operations, requiring immediate compliance assessment and system updates.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original MAS source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Insurance

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇩🇪 BaFin News high

March 13th 2026

Equity Research Ventures PTE. LTD. („AlleAktien“): evidence indicates no prospectus published

The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has evidence indicating that Equity Research Ventures PTE. LTD., purportedly domiciled in Singapore, is offering capital investments under the name “Co-Investment AlleAktien Wealth x SpaceX” to the public in Germany without the required prospectus. These capital investments are being offered in the form of “other capital investments” within the meaning of section 1 (2) no. 7 of the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz - Verm...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇭🇰 SFC Speech

March 13th 2026

New speech by Kelvin Wong: Keynote address at HKICPA’s Financial Services Interest Group Cocktail Reception

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇪🇺 ESMA Speech medium

March 12th 2026

ESMA sets out actions to simplify the retail investor journey and make investing more accessible

ESMA sets out actions to simplify the retail investor journey and make investing more accessible 12 March 2026 Investor protection Press Releases The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published its takeaways from the 2025 Call for Evidence (CfE) on the retail investor journey. Taking into account the input from stakeholders, ESMA outlines a number of actions and operational improvements it will take forward to make it ea...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct ESG Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE Speech

March 12th 2026

Data as a dialogue – speech by Vicky White

Given at Connect Global Group 4th Annual Treasury and Capital Markets Forum

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA News medium

March 12th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Taliban

Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung der Liste der sanktionierten natürlichen Personen, Unternehmen und Organisationen der Verordnung vom 21. März 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Gruppen, die mit den Taliban in Verbindung stehen (SR 946.231.07), publiziert.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

March 12th 2026

Interpretative note

Delay in the 2026 AML/CFT standardised data collection

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

March 12th 2026

Reporting template

Delay in the 2026 AML/CFT standardised data collection

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

March 12th 2026

Profit and loss account of credit institutions as at 31 December 2025 (only in French)

Press release 26/06

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

March 12th 2026

Public Hearings organised by AMLA on 24 March 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇩🇪 BaFin News medium

March 12th 2026

TGI AG: evidence indicates no prospectus published

The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has evidence indicating that TGI AG, domiciled in Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein, is offering capital investments to the public in Germany called “discounted gold purchases” (Goldkauf mit Rabatt). In return for the temporary provision of money, these investments grant interest and the physical delivery of gold. In contravention of section 6 of the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz - VermAnlG), no prospectus has been...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

March 12th 2026

List of professional activities and mandates performed by members of the management body/governing body and by conducting officers (points 105 and 107 of Circular CSSF 18/698) (Updated)

Table listing the professional activities and the mandates performed

AI Analysis

This CSSF publication is an updated table (in XLSX format) listing standardized professional activities and mandates for members of the management body/governing body and conducting officers, as required under points 105 and 107 of Circular CSSF 18/698. It matters because it ensures consistent, transparent reporting of senior personnel roles in Luxembourg investment fund managers (IFMs), supporting governance, conflict-of-interest management, and CSSF supervisory oversight. Compliance professionals must use this list to standardize disclosures in authorization files and ongoing reporting.

What Changed

The document was originally published on 14 January 2019 and updated on 12 March 2026, reflecting revisions to the predefined list of professional activities and mandates[Source URL].
Alignment with Circular CSSF 18/698 requirements for IFMs (management companies for UCIs and AIFs), specifying reportable roles like those in collective portfolio management, risk management,...
Emphasis on detailed documentation of mandates to demonstrate fitness, properness, and avoidance of conflicts, including for shareholders with qualifying holdings.
No entirely new requirements introduced, but the update likely incorporates evolving governance expectations, such as enhanced delegate oversight and AML/CFT compliance officer designations.

Suggested Considerations

Download and use the XLSX table: Incorporate the exact list of activities/mandates into internal templates for reporting management body and conducting officer roles[Source URL].
Update authorization and notification files: Include detailed CVs, criminal record extracts, wealth declarations, and organization charts for relevant personnel/shareholders; notify CSSF of changes (e.g., qualifying holdings, guarantees).
Conduct fit-and-proper assessments: Ensure declarations cover all listed mandates, demonstrating no conflicts and adequate resources; perform initial/ongoing due diligence on delegates.
Annual compliance review: Document roles in compliance monitoring plans, training, and reporting to senior management/CSSF; align with delegate oversight (e.g., risk-based monitoring of compliance, audit functions).
Policy updates: Revise governance policies to reflect the updated list, including AML/CFT officer designations and own funds proofs.

Key Dates

23 August 2018

- Publication of underlying Circular CSSF 18/698, setting baseline requirements

14 January 2019

- Original publication of the list

12 March 2026

- Latest update to the list, requiring immediate review and integration into reporting processes[Source URL]

End of May (post DEADLINE

financial year); - Compliance deadline for Circular 18/698 obligations, including governance reporting (e.g., 5 months after year-end)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – The March 12, 2026 update coincides with today's date, demanding immediate review to avoid supervisory findings during CSSF inspections or authorization processes. Non-compliance risks authorization delays, fines, or reputational damage, as Circular 18/698 emphasizes robust governance in a heightened scrutiny environment for IFMs (e.g., delegate oversight, AML).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBankAll Firms

🇺🇸 CFTC News high

March 11th 2026

CFTC and SEC Announce Historic Memorandum of Understanding Between Agencies

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerCrypto ExchangeAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF News

March 11th 2026

Global situation of undertakings for collective investment at the end of January 2026

Press release 26/05

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 BoE Enforcement high

March 11th 2026

PRA fines U K Insurance Limited £10,625,000

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has imposed a financial penalty of £10,625,000 on U K Insurance Limited (UKI Limited) in connection with a miscalculation of their Solvency II balance sheet during 2023 and 2024.

AI Analysis

The PRA fined U K Insurance Limited (UKI Limited) £10.625 million (reduced from £21.25 million via 50% Early Account Scheme discount) for breaching Solvency II reporting rules due to a miscalculation overstating its solvency balance sheet in 2023-2024, stemming from ineffective controls and resourcing in finance/actuarial functions. This landmark case highlights PRA's emphasis on accurate prudential reporting and rewards early self-reporting/cooperation, signaling heightened enforcement scrutiny on insurers' control frameworks. It matters as it demonstrates PRA's use of the EAS for efficiency and underscores risks of control failures undermining supervisory effectiveness.

What Changed

No new regulatory rules or requirements are introduced; this is an enforcement action applying existing PRA rules. Key breaches include:
PRA Fundamental Rule 6: Failure to organise/control affairs responsibly/effectively due to ineffective preventative/detective controls and resourcing issues.
Notifications Rule 6.1: Information to PRA not factually accurate or complete.
Reporting Rules 2.4 and 3.2: Submissions lacked completeness, reliability, and compliance with SFCR structure/principles. This is the first EAS application, per PRA's enforcement approach (pages...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct control reviews: Assess finance/actuarial functions for preventative/detective control gaps, resourcing adequacy, and documentation (e.g., double-counting risks in Solvency II balance sheets).
Test reporting accuracy: Validate Solvency II submissions (e.g., SFCR, SCR Coverage Ratio) against Rules 6.1, 2.4, 3.2; ensure factual accuracy, completeness, and reliability.
Leverage EAS: Self-report errors early, provide candid root-cause analyses, and make admissions to qualify for penalty discounts.
Remediate proactively: Invest in control enhancements, as UKI did post-identification; align with PRA 2026 priorities on data quality, internal models, and operational resilience.
Document governance: Address longstanding resourcing concerns, per PRA's 2023 PSM letter risks.

Key Dates

2023

2024; Relevant period of miscalculation and breaches

13 August 2024

Firm notified PRA of error with preliminary root cause analysis

23 August 2024

Public disclosure via Regulatory News Service on SCR Coverage Ratio impact

1 July 2025

Aviva acquired DLG/UKI Limited (events pre-date)

10 March 2026

PRA issued Final Notice and imposed penalty

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This enforcement validates PRA's zero-tolerance for solvency misreporting, risking supervisory misjudgment and policyholder threats; firms face similar fines without EAS discounts. It amplifies 2026 priorities on internal models, data quality, and controls amid softening markets/BPA pressures, demanding immediate control audits to avoid escalation.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

InsuranceAll Firms

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇬🇧 FCA News high

March 11th 2026

Man jailed for running illegal sale-and-rent-back scheme targeting struggling homeowners

Rajinder Gill and accomplices have been sentenced for their involvement in a sale-and-rent-back scheme. Mr Gill has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison for running a sale-and-rent-back scheme without being authorised and illegally providing credit agreements and mortgages. As accomplices in the scheme, Amandeep Heer received a community order for 2 years with a condition of 250 hours of unpaid work, and Jetinder Sandhu has completed 100 hours' unpaid work over 12 months (as a con...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

March 11th 2026

Circular letter

Delay in the 2026 AML/CFT standardised data collection

AI Analysis

The CSSF circular letter dated 11 March 2026 announces a delay in its planned AML/CFT standardised data collection exercise originally scheduled for 2026, primarily due to overlap with a concurrent broad-scope data collection by the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA). This matters for compliance professionals as it reduces immediate reporting burdens on supervised entities, promotes regulatory simplification, and aligns Luxembourg practices with emerging EU AML/CFT methodologies, allowing firms to redirect resources to the mandatory AMLA exercise.

What Changed

- Postponement of CSSF-specific questionnaire: The CSSF has decided not to proceed with its own AML/CFT standardised data collection for most supervised entities (credit institutions, investment...
Exception for specialised professionals: Specialised professionals of the financial sector (e.g., certain non-credit institutions) remain subject to a CSSF-specific questionnaire, though timelines...
Rationale tied to AMLA calibration exercise: Entities selected for AMLA's 2026 calibration exercise (notified directly by CSSF) must complete it regardless; non-selected entities were to use AMLA...
Potential for ad-hoc requests: CSSF reserves the right to issue targeted questionnaires later in 2026 for essential data points not covered by AMLA. These changes supersede the 12 February 2026...

Suggested Considerations

Monitor CSSF updates: Await forthcoming communications on revised modalities, new timelines, and any ad-hoc requests via eDesk platform.
Prioritize AMLA obligations: Selected entities must prepare quantitative/qualitative ML/TF risk data per draft RTS on risk assessments (Article 40(2) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640); non-selected entities focus on AMLA templates for 2025 risks/mitigation.
Specialised professionals: Continue preparations for CSSF-specific questionnaire, confirming any shifts post-delay.
Internal review: Assess ML/TF risk profiles, mitigation measures, and reporting readiness in light of EU alignment; update compliance calendars to reflect simplification.
No immediate submissions: Stand down from original 2 March/15 April deadlines unless individually notified otherwise.

Key Dates

TBD 2026

Potential ad-hoc CSSF questionnaires for essential data points

23 February 2026

Original launch for specialised professionals' CSSF questionnaire

2 March 2026

Original launch date for AMLA calibration exercise data collection via eDesk (now potentially adjusted or paused per delay circular)

11 March 2026

Publication of delay circular, superseding prior timelines; further modalities to be communicated

15 April 2026 DEADLINE

Original reporting deadline to CSSF for AMLA calibration exercise data

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. The delay alleviates short-term pressure by postponing submissions and reducing dual reporting, enabling resource reallocation to higher-priority AMLA efforts amid EU harmonization. It matters for maintaining a risk-based approach (RBA) under FATF standards, avoiding overburden from overlapping exercises, and preparing for the new EU AML/CFT methodology—non-compliance risks supervisory scrutiny, but the simplification lowers immediate enforcement exposure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

March 11th 2026

Remedy Housing officers sentenced for dishonesty offences

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News low

March 11th 2026

Charges discontinued in Capital Mining Limited matter

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇪🇺 ECB Enforcement high

March 10th 2026

ECB sanctions Nordea subsidiary for breaching limit on large exposures

No description available.

AI Analysis

The ECB imposed a €2.26 million penalty on Nordea Finance Finland Ltd for incorrectly reporting large exposures by assigning guaranteed receivables to debtors instead of guarantors, breaching the 25% capital limit for 13 quarters from 2021-2024 due to serious negligence and internal control deficiencies. This enforcement action underscores the ECB's strict enforcement of large exposure rules under EU banking regulations, serving as a warning for banks on accurate counterparty identification and robust controls. Compliance professionals must prioritize exposure calculation accuracy to avoid severe penalties classified as "severe" under ECB guidelines.

What Changed

- 2021 Regulatory Change: Prohibits assigning guaranteed receivables to debtors for large exposure calculations; exposures must be assigned to guarantors instead, ensuring proper risk attribution to...
Large Exposure Limits (CRR): Exposures exceeding 10% of a bank's capital trigger reporting as "large"; no single exposure or group of connected counterparties may exceed 25% of capital.
Severity Classification: ECB categorizes breaches as "severe" (from minor to extremely severe), guiding penalty calculations per its *Guide to the method of setting administrative pecuniary...
Broader Framework: EBA Guidelines on large exposures provide criteria for assessing breaches and timelines for returning to compliance, emphasizing harmonized EU application.

Suggested Considerations

Review Exposure Calculations: Immediately audit methodologies for guaranteed receivables, ensuring assignment to guarantors per 2021 rules; validate against CRR connected client principles.[ECB Press Release]
Enhance Internal Controls: Implement robust governance to prevent "serious negligence," including automated checks, independent validation, and training on counterparty identification.[ECB Press Release]
Conduct Gap Analysis: Test large exposure reporting for the past 4 years; remediate any breaches within EBA timelines (e.g., return to compliance promptly).
Monitor and Report: Establish real-time monitoring for exposures >10% capital; notify ECB of breaches immediately with remediation plans.[ECB Press Release]
Penalty Challenge Option: Affected firms may appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union within standard timelines (typically 2 months).[ECB Press Release]

Key Dates

2021

Regulatory change introduced prohibiting debtor assignment for guaranteed receivables; .[ECB Press Release]

Q1 2021 to Q4 2024 (13 consecutive quarters)

Period of breaches by Nordea Finance Finland Ltd; .[ECB Press Release]

10 March 2026

ECB announces €2.26 million penalty; .[ECB Press Release]

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This recent ECB enforcement (announced yesterday) demonstrates aggressive penalty application for prolonged breaches, with €2.26 million for "severe" violations signaling heightened scrutiny on large exposures amid ongoing CRR/CRD VI alignment. Firms risk similar fines, reputational damage, and supervisory escalation if controls fail, especially with ECB's 2026-2028 priorities emphasizing risk management. Immediate reviews are essential to mitigate exposure in a regime designed as a prudential backstop.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ECB source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

March 10th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Islamische Republik Iran

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung der Anhänge 3, 12, 13 und 14 der Verordnung vom 12. Dezember 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber der Islamischen Republik Iran (SR 946.231.143.6) publiziert.

AI Analysis

Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (WBF) has updated sanctions targeting the Islamic Republic of Iran, effective March 10, 2026 at 23:00 UTC, modifying annexes 3, 12, 13, and 14 of the Iran sanctions ordinance (SR 946.231.143.6). This represents a comprehensive revision of Iran-related financial restrictions that requires immediate compliance action from all Swiss financial intermediaries to freeze assets, implement prohibitions, and report affected business relationships.

What Changed

The regulatory update encompasses four substantive modifications:
Annex 3: Expansion of the goods list subject to export/import restrictions
Annexes 12, 13, and 14: Updates to the list of sanctioned persons, enterprises, and organizations subject to asset freezing and transaction prohibitions
SESAM Database: The Swiss sanctions management database (SECO Sanctions Management) has been updated to reflect all changes, published urgently on the WBF website The changes represent a total...

Suggested Considerations

*Implement Prohibitions: Execute all transaction bans and restrictions specified in the updated ordinance annexes
*Asset Freezing: Immediately freeze all assets and funds of sanctioned persons, enterprises, and organizations identified in the updated SESAM database
*Mandatory Reporting to SECO: Report all affected business relationships to the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs within required timeframes
*Enhanced Due Diligence: Conduct additional investigations under Article 6 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) when suspicious indicators arise
*Suspicious Activity Reporting: If enhanced due diligence cannot eliminate suspicions, file mandatory reports with the Money Laundering Reporting Office (Meldestelle für Geldwäscherei) under Article 9 GwG without delay

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed an administrative sanction on 2 December 2025 against an approved statutory auditor (*réviseur d’entreprises agréé*) for breaches of professional obligations, likely related to continuing education requirements under Luxembourg's Audit Law, mirroring patterns in recent similar cases. This enforcement action underscores the CSSF's rigorous oversight of audit professionals, emphasizing compliance with ongoing training mandates to maintain audit quality and market integrity. Compliance professionals should note it as evidence of heightened scrutiny on non-delegable professional duties.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement action applying existing rules under point f) of Article 43(1) read with point a) of Article 43(2) and Article 44 of the Law of 23 July 2016 on the audit profession (Audit Law), alongside CSSF Regulation N°16-10 on continuing education.

Suggested Considerations

Immediate self-audit: Statutory auditors must verify personal compliance with continuing education hours under CSSF Regulation N°16-10, documenting hours against Article 3(1) requirements and submitting evidence if requested.
Remediation plan: If shortfalls identified, complete deficit training promptly and notify CSSF of corrective measures, as seen in related governance cases where entities implemented remediation.
Internal training programs: Audit firms should enhance monitoring of auditor CPE (continuing professional education) logs, integrating CSSF controls akin to Article 10 of the Audit Law.
Fit-and-proper reviews: Boards and compliance officers assess auditor qualifications, escalating any gaps to CSSF per professional obligations.
Record retention: Maintain verifiable CPE records for at least the reference period plus CSSF inspection windows (typically 3-5 years).

Key Dates

31 December 2024 DEADLINE

- Likely reference period end for continuing education non-compliance (inferred from identical prior case)

2 December 2025

- Date of administrative sanction imposition by CSSF

6 March 2026

- Publication date of the sanction notice (today's date, aligning with CSSF practice for transparency under Article 48(2) of the Audit Law)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This matters as a signal of CSSF's proactive controls on auditor CPE, with fines starting at EUR 1,500 for initial breaches but scaling with severity/duration; repeated actions (e.g., multiple 2025 sanctions) indicate rising enforcement tempo, risking broader audit ecosystem scrutiny. Affected parties face direct fines and reputational harm, while others must prioritize CPE to avoid chain-reaction liabilities in financial reporting.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

March 6th 2026

ASIC files Court action to wind up Liberty Bell Bay after failures to lodge financial reports

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending Banking & Credit

🇸🇬 MAS News low

March 6th 2026

We'd also streamline the scheme, so millions get compensation in 2026. We're considering over 1,000 responses to our proposals for a compensation scheme for motor finance customers who were treated unfairly.If we proceed with a scheme, we are likely to make several changes. If we do go ahead, we expect to publish final rules in late March. The timing of publication will be outside market hours and we'll confirm the date in advance. Final decisions on the scheme have not yet been made. But to ...

AI Analysis

The FCA is implementing a **streamlined motor finance compensation scheme** to address unfair commission disclosure practices, with final rules expected in late March 2026 and scheme launch in early 2026. This represents a major regulatory intervention affecting approximately 14 million motor finance agreements with estimated total redress costs of £8.2 billion, requiring immediate operational preparation by all lenders and finance providers.

What Changed

The FCA's streamlined approach introduces several material modifications to the original compensation scheme proposal: Process Streamlining
Automatic opt-in for prior complainants: Customers who complained before scheme launch will no longer be asked to opt out.
Immediate acceptance of offers: Consumers can accept redress offers immediately rather than waiting for final determinations.
Flexible communication channels: Firms are no longer required to use recorded delivery; alternative channels with fraud safeguards are permitted. Implementation Timeline
Three-month standard implementation period from scheme launch, with up to five months for older agreements to allow adequate data review and calculation accuracy.

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Priorities (Q1 2026):
*Data Integrity Assessment: Conduct comprehensive audit of historic motor finance agreements to identify eligible customers and validate transactional data completeness, particularly for older agreements.
*Redress Calculator Development: Build auditable, validated redress calculators capable of:
Repricing loans based on proposed APR reductions
Calculating compensatory interest at BoE base rate + 1%

Key Dates

Early 2026

– Scheme implementation begins (exact date dependent on final rules publication)

Late March 2026

– FCA to publish final scheme rules (timing to be confirmed in advance, outside market hours)

31 May 2026 DEADLINE

– Motor finance complaints handling pause lifts; firms must be ready to respond to complaints outside the scheme

11 April 2031 DEADLINE

– Record retention deadline for all relevant scheme documentation

Three months from scheme launch

– Standard implementation period for lenders to contact prior complainants and provide compensation notifications

Compliance Impact

Urgency: CRITICAL

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankFintechAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇬 MAS News

March 4th 2026

Written reply to Parliamentary Question on green, social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked loans

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇸🇬 MAS News

March 4th 2026

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

This Statistical Notice announces the final User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window for the BEEDS platform using Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL, open from 30 March to 17 April 2026, ahead of live submissions for end-May 2026 data due mid-June 2026. It matters for compliance as it mandates testing for statistical reporting firms and software houses to ensure valid submissions, with successful participation required for software houses to gain recognised status on the BoE's published list, impacting reporting readiness and vendor approvals.

What Changed

- Introduction of BEEDS UAT environment specifically for testing Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL, described as the last UAT before live end-May 2026 submissions.
Requirement for software houses to submit valid files for every statistical entry point (no nil returns accepted) to qualify as recognised; Form IP submissions strongly encouraged though not...
Automatic access for statistical reporting firms using existing LIVE credentials; software houses must request access by email.
Post-UAT validation by BoE, with potential loading of test files for verification, and email notifications on review outcomes.
Reminder that BoE name usage in marketing requires prior Press Office approval. No prior taxonomy version explicitly compared, but this builds on prior UAT cycles (e.g., 2025 Notice proposed two...

Suggested Considerations

Statistical reporting firms: Monitor email for temporary UAT password from beedsuat_donotreply@bankofengland.co.uk; log in using existing LIVE firm/user details (no access request needed); submit valid test files across entry points during window.
Software houses: Email BEEDSqueries@bankofengland.co.uk by 20 March 2026 for access; submit valid, non-nil files for every statistical entry point (include Form IP if possible); await BoE validation and recognition list update.
All parties: Ensure submissions contain valid data only; avoid nil returns; seek Press Office approval for any BoE name use in promotions.
Review full details on BoE Statistical Reporting page for recognised software house list.

Key Dates

20 March 2026 DEADLINE

- Software houses must email BEEDSqueries@bankofengland.co.uk to request UAT access

30 March 2026

- BEEDS UAT environment opens for testing Statistical Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL

17 April 2026

- BEEDS UAT environment closes (final window before live submissions)

End

May 2026; - Reference period for first live submissions post-UAT

Mid DEADLINE

June 2026; - Due date for live submissions covering end-May 2026 data

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This is the final UAT before mid-June 2026 live deadline, with software house recognition tied directly to successful valid submissions (no nil returns), risking non-compliance or delisting for live reporting. Missing it could lead to submission failures, supervisory scrutiny, or reliance on unapproved vendors, especially as BEEDS replaces legacy systems like OSCA. With today near early March 2026, immediate access requests are critical for software houses.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankFintech

🇬🇧 FCA policy_statement high

March 3rd 2026

UK Listing Rules for investment entities review

We are bringing forward a review of some aspects of the UK Listing Rules to consider how they apply to specific types of investment entities. As part of the Primary Markets EffectivenessReviewwe explored which types of investment entities could be eligible to be listed. Since introducing the new listingruleswe have heard from stakeholders that these eligibility criteria, particularlyregardingrisk-spreading, may be unduly restrictive. We will use this review to assess if changes should be made...

AI Analysis

The FCA is conducting a targeted review of UK Listing Rules applicable to investment entities, with particular focus on whether current risk-spreading eligibility criteria are unduly restrictive and how rules support shareholder rights and conflict management. This review represents a potential material shift in listing accessibility for alternative investment funds and closed-ended investment vehicles, with final proposals expected by end-2026.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

March 3rd 2026

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/489 of 26 February 2026

implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

March 3rd 2026

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/426 of 26 February 2026

implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

March 3rd 2026

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇦🇪 DFSA News medium

March 3rd 2026

Nasdaq Dubai reopens for trading effective Wednesday, 4 March 2026 at 10.00am…

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerFintech

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇺🇸 CFTC News medium

March 2nd 2026

CFTC Chairman Selig Announces Alan Brubaker as Director of the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankBroker DealerFintech

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

March 2nd 2026

Publication of guidance on documents and information to be submitted for the assessment of the shareholding structure of authorised IFMs – initial authorisation and modification of an authorised IFM (qualified and non-qualified shareholders)

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF published guidance on 2 March 2026 specifying minimum documents and information required for assessing shareholding structures of authorised Investment Fund Managers (IFMs) during initial authorisation and subsequent modifications, covering both qualified and non-qualified shareholders. This matters because incomplete submissions will not be processed, potentially delaying authorisations or amendments amid ongoing CSSF scrutiny of governance and ownership in Luxembourg's fund sector.

What Changed

- Minimum Document Requirements: Establishes a mandatory list of documents for each new shareholder candidate, differentiated by type (e.g., natural person, legal person, beneficial owner,...
Additional Mandatory Submissions: For changes involving qualified holdings (entry, increase/decrease, removal), requires updated group structure charts, MEF (in some cases), financing information,...
Enforcement Mechanism: From 2 March 2026, applications lacking these minimums are deemed incomplete, halting analysis until fully submitted.
No prior formalised list existed in this detail for IFMs, shifting from case-by-case to standardised requirements.

Suggested Considerations

Review Guidance: Download and study the XLSX document (Version 1.0) detailing per-shareholder/per-change requirements.
Prepare Complete Packages: For initial authorisation or amendments, compile minimum docs (e.g., IDs for beneficial owners/PEPs, group charts, financing details, MEF, fees); use *MEF templates where noted.
Submit Fully: Ensure all minimums included in future filings to avoid delays; anticipate CSSF requests for extras.
Internal Processes: Update compliance checklists, train teams on shareholder due diligence, and integrate into authorisation workflows.

Key Dates

🇦🇪 DFSA News low

March 1st 2026

The Securities and Exchange Commission today adopted final rule and form amendments to reflect the requirements of the recently enacted Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (HFIA), which will increase transparency into the holdings and transactions…

AI Analysis

The SEC adopted final rules on February 27, 2026, implementing the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (HFIA), which extends Section 16(a) beneficial ownership reporting requirements to directors and officers of foreign private issuers (FPIs) with Exchange Act Section 12-registered equity securities, effective March 18, 2026. This aligns FPI insiders' disclosure obligations with those of U.S. domestic issuers, enhancing market transparency while exempting >10% holders from reporting. Compliance professionals must prioritize preparation as the deadline approaches in two weeks from today (March 3, 2026).

What Changed

- Extension of Section 16(a) Reporting: Directors and officers of FPIs must now file Forms 3 (initial beneficial ownership), 4 (changes in ownership), and 5 (annual summary) electronically and in...
Rule Amendments: - Rule 3a12-3(b): Removes full Section 16 exemption for FPI insiders; retains exemptions only for Section 16(b) short-swing profits and Section 16(c) short-selling prohibitions....
Form Updates: Forms 3, 4, and 5 amended to include non-U.S. issuers and reporters; technical changes to instructions for EDGAR support contacts and paper filing addresses.
Exemptive Authority: SEC may exempt persons/securities/transactions if foreign laws impose "substantially similar" requirements, but no exemptions granted yet; staff evaluating.

Suggested Considerations

For FPIs and Insiders: Identify all directors/officers subject to Section 16; implement processes for electronic/English-language filings via EDGAR; file initial Form 3 by March 18, 2026 (or sooner for new appointees); establish transaction monitoring for prompt Form 4 filings.
Training and Policies: Update insider trading policies, provide training on forms/reporting timelines; designate EDGAR filers with proper contacts.
Systems Preparation: Integrate with trading/brokerage systems for real-time ownership tracking; prepare for Form 5 annual reconciliations.
Monitor Exemptions: Watch for SEC exemptive relief based on foreign law equivalency; assume compliance required absent announcement.

Key Dates

December 18, 2025

HFIA enacted into law

February 27, 2026

SEC adopts final rules (ahead of 90-day mandate)

March 18, 2026 DEADLINE

Effective date; directors/officers of existing FPIs must file initial Form 3; new directors/officers file within 10 days of appointment; ongoing Forms 4 within 2 business days of transactions

Ongoing

Annual Form 5 for unreported transactions; adopting release published in Federal Register (date TBD)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Critical – With the March 18, 2026, effective date just two weeks away (as of March 3, 2026), non-compliance risks SEC enforcement, including public disclosure failures and potential civil penalties under Section 16. This materially heightens governance burdens for FPIs, demands immediate system/process overhauls, and aligns foreign insiders with U.S. standards to prevent opacity in cross-border listings.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇯🇵 JFSA News low

February 27th 2026

Publication,Publication of "FSA Analytical Notes (2026.2): Analysis of Human Resource Support by Regional Banks and Shortages of Managerial Talent at Firms" in Japanese

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 SEC News low

February 27th 2026

SEC, FSA Hold Spring Financial Regulatory Dialogue

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Services Agency of Japan (FSA) convened the Spring SEC-FSA Financial Regulatory Dialogue in Tokyo on Feb. 27, 2026.The SEC–FSA Dialogue builds upon longstanding efforts between the two…

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇪🇺 ESMA Guidance high

February 27th 2026

New Q&As available

New Q&As available 27 February 2026 CCP Digital Finance and Innovation Financial reporting Issuer disclosure Transparency The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU's securities markets regulator, has published or updated the following Questions and Answers: European crowdfunding service providers for business Use of fiduciary (nominee) structures in equity crowdfunding (2601) Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) Clarification on Withdrawal Requirements under Article 7...

AI Analysis

ESMA has published or updated multiple Q&As covering European crowdfunding, MiCA for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), EMIR for central counterparties (CCPs), and Transparency Directive requirements on financial reporting and alternative performance measures (APMs). These updates provide clarifications on operational, reporting, and disclosure obligations, enhancing supervisory convergence and compliance certainty amid evolving EU regulations like MiCA and IFRS 18. Compliance professionals must prioritize these to avoid enforcement risks, particularly with upcoming effective dates in 2027.

What Changed

- Crowdfunding: New Q&A (2601) on use of fiduciary (nominee) structures in equity crowdfunding, clarifying permissible structures for service providers.
MiCA (CASPs): Updates include clarification on withdrawal requirements under Article 75 (2320); fixed overheads calculation (2349); interests from client funds at credit institutions (2486); fiat...
EMIR (CCPs): New Q&As on AAR threshold calculation (2418, 2779), AAR representativeness obligation (2776, 2777), and AAR stress testing (2778), building on ESMA's supervisory briefing for...
Transparency Directive: New Q&A (2775, effective 1 January 2027) on IFRS 18 and APMs interaction; updated Q&As (effective 1 January 2027) on measures in/outside financial statements (1868), interim...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update policies: CASPs must align withdrawal processes (Art. 75), overhead calculations, client fund interest handling, fiat payout mechanisms, offer/placing distinctions, and trading platform compliance with Title II.
Crowdfunding firms: Assess and document use of nominee structures per Q&A 2601.
CCPs/counterparties: Implement AAR reporting for thresholds, representativeness (with subcategory identification and trade reporting examples), and stress testing; reference ESMA's supervisory briefing for compliance models.
Issuers/reporters: Revise APM disclosures for IFRS 18 compatibility, ensuring prominence, clear definitions, and consistent presentation inside/outside statements effective 1 January 2027.
General: Integrate Q&As into compliance training, internal audits, and NCA reporting; monitor ESMA's Questions and Answers section for full texts.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched a consultation on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) that establish requirements for **post-trade risk reduction (PTRR) services** to qualify for a conditioned exemption from the mandatory clearing obligation under EMIR 3. This framework is critical because it balances market efficiency gains from risk reduction tools against systemic risk concerns, requiring compliance professionals to understand new operational, transparency, and monitoring requirements before the standards take effect.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

February 26th 2026

SEC Announces Roundtable on Private Markets Valuation As Retail Investor Access Accelerates

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced it will hold a roundtable on March 4 to discuss private market valuations and responsible retailization.The roundtable will be hosted by the Division of Investment Management from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET…

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBroker DealerFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

February 26th 2026

Directive (EU) 2026/470 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 February 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News

February 26th 2026

Court minutes from 2023 that were previously redacted

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Crypto & Digital Assets

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

February 26th 2026

Sanktionen: Russland und Belarus

Der Bundesrat hat am 25. Februar 2026 beschlossen, die weiteren Massnahmen des 19. Sanktionspakets der Europäischen Union (EU) gegenüber Russland zu übernehmen. Die neuen Massnahmen treten am 26. Februar 2026 in Kraft.

AI Analysis

Switzerland's Federal Council adopted additional measures from the EU's 19th sanctions package against Russia and Belarus on February 25, 2026, effective immediately on February 26, 2026, expanding asset freezes to approximately 2,600 persons, entities, and organizations. This matters for Swiss financial intermediaries as it introduces new prohibitions on crypto services to Russian nationals and firms, transactions with ruble-pegged stablecoins like "A7A5", and extended bans on specialized messaging services for payments, alongside trade restrictions, requiring urgent asset screening and reporting to SECO.

What Changed

- Crypto Restrictions: Complete ban on providing any crypto services to Russian nationals and companies; prohibition on transactions involving specific ruble-backed crypto assets, such as the...
Payment Systems: Expansion of bans on using certain specialized messaging services for payment traffic.
Trade/Goods Bans: Expanded list of goods contributing to Russia's military/technological strengthening, including metals for weapon systems, fuel production products, and acyclic hydrocarbons (key...
Sanctions List Expansion: Builds on December 12, 2025 addition of 64 persons/organizations; Swiss list now aligns fully with EU's, covering ~2,600 targets subject to asset freezes related to Ukraine...
Related EU 19th package details (adopted by Switzerland) include sanctions on Rosneft/Gazprom Neft, shadow fleet ships, new banks, payment systems like Mir/SPFS, and import bans on LNG/acyclic...

Suggested Considerations

Implement all prohibitions immediately: Block crypto services to Russian nationals/companies; halt transactions with ruble-pegged stablecoins like A7A5; cease use of banned messaging services for payments.
Screen and freeze assets of sanctioned persons/entities (~2,600 total); report affected business relationships to SECO.
Conduct additional due diligence under Art. 6 GwG on suspicions; if unresolved, file immediate suspicious activity report to money laundering reporting office under Art. 9 GwG (SECO report does not exempt this).
Update sanctions screening tools, client onboarding, and transaction monitoring for new crypto/trade restrictions; review exposures to energy/finance goods listed.

Key Dates

12 December 2025

- Initial adoption of partial 19th package measures, adding 64 persons/organizations to Swiss sanctions list

13 December 2025

- Entry into force of December 2025 sanctions expansions (related prior update)

26 February 2026

- New measures from EU 19th sanctions package enter into force in Switzerland

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Critical - Effective today (26 February 2026), requiring immediate asset freezes, service halts, and SECO reporting to avoid violations punishable by fines up to CHF 540,000 or 5 years imprisonment (severe cases referred to federal prosecutor); GwG suspicions add AML reporting layers with CHF 100,000 fines for non-reporting. Crypto bans directly target growing evasion risks, amplifying exposure for digital asset firms amid Russia's war economy circumvention tactics.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankPayment ProviderCrypto Exchange

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

February 26th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Sudan

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2025 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) publiziert.

AI Analysis

This FINMA publication announces an update to the Swiss sanctions list for Sudan following changes by the UN Sanctions Committee on February 24, 2026, directly incorporated into Switzerland's SESAM database by SECO on February 25, 2026. It matters because financial intermediaries must immediately freeze assets of newly listed parties and report to SECO, while continuing AML due diligence under the GwG (Anti-Money Laundering Act), to avoid enforcement risks from non-compliance with Embargo Act (EmbG) obligations.

What Changed

- The UN Sanctions Committee for Sudan amended its list of sanctioned natural persons, companies, and organizations on February 24, 2026.
SECO updated the SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management) database and published the changes on its website on February 25, 2026.
This triggers direct applicability in Switzerland under the Federal Council's 2016 ordinance for automatic adoption of UN sanctions lists, amending Annex of SR 946.231.18 (Ordinance on Measures...
Financial intermediaries are required to implement prohibitions, freeze assets, and report affected business relationships to SECO; SECO reporting does not exempt AML suspicions under Art.

Suggested Considerations

Screen client portfolios, accounts, and transactions against the updated SESAM Sudan list via SECO's website or MyFINMA notifications.
Freeze (block) assets of any matches and implement transaction prohibitions per the ordinance.
Report affected business relationships to SECO promptly.
Conduct additional due diligence under Art. 6 GwG for suspicions; if unresolved, file immediate suspicious activity report to the Money Laundering Reporting Office Switzerland (MROS) under Art. 9 GwG.
Monitor FINMA's sanctions page for ongoing updates: https://www.finma.ch/en/documentation/international-sanctions-and-combating-terrorism/international-sanctions-and-independent-freezing-measures/.

Key Dates

February 24, 2026

- UN Sanctions Committee amends Sudan list

February 25, 2026

- SECO updates SESAM database and publishes on its website; changes directly applicable in Switzerland

Immediate (upon publication) DEADLINE

- Financial intermediaries must freeze assets and report to SECO; no fixed deadline specified, but "unverzüglich" (without delay) for GwG AML reporting if suspicions persist

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Changes are directly applicable with no grace period, requiring immediate asset freezes and reporting to mitigate FINMA enforcement risks (e.g., coercive measures under administrative law). Non-compliance exposes firms to supervisory sanctions, reputational damage, and potential criminal liability under EmbG/GwG, especially amid frequent UN list updates (e.g., recent February 18 change). Firms with Sudan exposure or high-risk clients must prioritize automated screening tools and training.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Payments & E-Money Crypto & Digital Assets Banking & Credit

🇬🇧 FCA policy_statement medium

February 26th 2026

Payments Vision Delivery Committee publishes Payments Forward Plan

The Payments Vision Delivery Committee (the Committee) has published the Payments Forward Plan (the Plan). Read the Plan on GOV.UKThe Committee comprises:HM TreasuryBank of EnglandFinancial Conduct AuthorityPayment Systems RegulatorThe Plan sets out upcoming initiatives across retail and wholesale payments, including elements of digital assets. Recent publications on open banking, stablecoins and contactless limits, alongside the initiatives in the Plan, show the high level of activity across...

AI Analysis

The Payments Vision Delivery Committee—comprising HM Treasury, Bank of England, FCA, and Payment Systems Regulator—has published the **Payments Forward Plan**, a three-year regulatory roadmap for retail, wholesale payments, and digital assets, aligning with the UK's National Payments Vision for a trusted, innovative ecosystem. This matters for compliance teams as it provides sequencing and milestones for multiple initiatives, enabling proactive planning amid high regulatory activity, including PSR consolidation into FCA and infrastructure upgrades. It signals coordinated efforts to boost competition, resilience, and innovation while minimizing sector capacity strain.[FCA publication]

What Changed

No immediate binding regulatory changes are imposed by the Plan itself; it is a forward-looking roadmap outlining planned initiatives rather than new rules. Key elements include:
Modernisation of payments framework: Consolidation of PSR into FCA, with HMT consultation response in Q1 2026; data/operational enhancements to Faster Payments and Bacs by end-2026.
Infrastructure upgrades: Short-term resilience improvements to Faster Payments and Bacs (end-2026); exploration of regulated stablecoins for on-chain settlement (H1 2026).
Safeguarding enhancements: FCA Supplementary Regime effective May 2026, with engagement Jan-Apr 2026.
Standards and open banking: Industry input on standards body (Feb-Mar 2026 assessment); HMT Data (Use and Access) Act SI in Q4 2026.

Suggested Considerations

Review the full Plan on GOV.UK (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699f2bc6c497bac082bc76bc/Payments_Forward_Plan_.pdf) and map initiatives to your firm's operations, prioritizing safeguarding, infrastructure, and stablecoins.
Engage proactively: Provide FCA views on standards body (by Feb 2026); participate in Jan-Apr 2026 safeguarding engagement; prepare for VRP rollout (live payments expected Q1 2026).
Stablecoin firms: Submit sandbox applications by 18 Jan 2026.
Monitor and plan: Track Regulatory Initiatives Grid for 2027; assess capacity for sequenced initiatives; ensure compliance readiness for May 2026 safeguarding rules and end-2026 infrastructure changes.
Internal audit: Evaluate current adherence to PSRs/EMRs, especially safeguarding, ahead of consolidation.

Key Dates

Q1 2026

HMT consultation response on PSR consolidation into FCA

Spring 2026

HMT update on Consumer Credit Act reform

18 January 2026 DEADLINE

Deadline for stablecoin issuers to apply to FCA regulatory sandbox; (related push for innovation)

May 2026

FCA Supplementary Regime for safeguarding comes into force

H1 2026

Bank/FCA exploration of regulated stablecoins for on-chain settlement

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This is a planning document, not enforceable rules, but its milestones trigger near-term actions (e.g., Q1 2026 engagements, May 2026 safeguarding). It matters because it coordinates high-activity areas like PSR-FCA merger and stablecoins, reducing surprises but demanding resource allocation for innovation/resilience amid sector capacity constraints. Firms delaying review risk missing input opportunities or readiness gaps, especially with VRP/stablecoin momentum.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

Payment ProviderFintechBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

February 26th 2026

Directive (EU) 2026/470 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 February 2026

amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting requirements and certain corporate sustainability due diligence requirements

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇪 DFSA News medium

February 26th 2026

Notice of Amendments to Legislation: February 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA Speech medium

February 25th 2026

ESMA sets out clearing thresholds under EMIR 3

ESMA sets out clearing thresholds under EMIR 3 25 February 2026 Post Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published its draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) setting out new and revised clearing thresholds (CTs) under EMIR 3. The proposed thresholds ensure continuity in the coverage of systemic risk in over‑the‑counter (OTC) derivative markets while avoiding unnecessary complexity and additional compliance ...

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

February 25th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Russland

AI Analysis

On February 23, 2026, Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) updated Annex 8 of the Ukraine Sanctions Ordinance (SR 946.231.176.72), with changes taking effect on February 24, 2026 at 11:00 PM UTC. This represents the latest iteration of Switzerland's Russia sanctions regime, requiring financial intermediaries to immediately implement new prohibitions, freeze assets of designated persons, and report affected business relationships to SECO—with mandatory additional due diligence under anti-money laundering law if suspicions cannot be resolved.

What Changed

The February 2026 update to Annex 8 of the Ukraine Sanctions Ordinance introduces modifications to Switzerland's designated persons and entities list related to Russia sanctions.
22 natural persons and 42 companies/organizations subject to asset freezes and supply prohibitions
116 vessels (primarily tankers in Russia's shadow fleet circumventing oil price caps) subject to purchase, sale, and service prohibitions
45 companies in third countries subject to stricter export controls targeting critical goods for Russia's military-industrial complex
5 Russian banks and 4 foreign branches subject to transaction prohibitions due to use of Russian payment systems

Suggested Considerations

*Implement all prohibitions specified in updated Annex 8 across all business lines and customer relationships
*Freeze assets of all newly designated natural persons and entities; block transactions with designated entities
*Report to SECO all affected business relationships within required timeframes, documenting:
Customer identification and beneficial ownership
Transaction history with designated parties

Key Dates

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇯🇵 JFSA News high

February 24th 2026

Press Conferences,Press Conference by KATAYAMA Satsuki, Minister of State for Financial Services (February 13, 2026)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

February 24th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.676 February 24, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements ESG Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement high

February 24th 2026

SEC’s Division of Enforcement Announces Updates to Enforcement Manual

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement today announced significant updates to its Enforcement Manual. These updates underscore the Commission’s ongoing commitment to fairness, transparency, and efficiency in the investigations…

AI Analysis

The SEC's Division of Enforcement announced updates to its Enforcement Manual on February 24, 2026, focusing on enhancing fairness, transparency, and efficiency in investigations through standardized procedures like the Wells process and settlement considerations. These changes, the first major revisions since 2017, introduce uniform timelines and best practices to streamline resolutions and improve dialogue with investigated parties. Compliance professionals should prioritize this as it directly affects how firms respond to SEC inquiries, potentially accelerating outcomes and reducing uncertainties in enforcement actions.

What Changed

The updates target investigative and enforcement procedures for greater consistency:
Uniform Wells process: Recipients of a Wells notice receive four weeks to submit responses; Wells meetings are scheduled within four weeks of submission and include senior Division leadership.
Simultaneous settlement and waiver consideration: Restores practice allowing settling parties to request Commission waivers from collateral consequences (e.g., disqualifications) alongside settlement...
Additional enhancements: Details framework for evaluating cooperation (including civil penalty impacts); promotes internal collaboration; updates formal order processes, criminal referrals, and...

Suggested Considerations

Review the updated Enforcement Manual (https://www.sec.gov/files/enforcementmanual.pdf) and train compliance/in-house legal teams on new Wells timelines and submission guidance.
Update internal policies for responding to Wells notices: Prepare submissions within four weeks, focusing on elements staff find "most helpful" (e.g., detailed facts, legal analysis).
For settlements, incorporate simultaneous waiver requests in offers to leverage restored process and mitigate collateral impacts.
Enhance cooperation strategies per new evaluation framework to potentially reduce civil penalties; document internal collaboration for enforcement interactions.
Monitor annual Manual reviews via SEC Division of Enforcement page (https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-enforcement).

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The FCA has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the newly established Independent Football Regulator (IFR) to define cooperation on regulating intersections between football clubs and financial services, such as ownership suitability, licensing, and financial sustainability. This matters for compliance professionals as it formalizes information sharing and joint oversight, potentially impacting firms involved in football-related financing, investments, or consumer credit products tied to sports. It supports the Football Governance Act 2025 framework, enhancing regulatory alignment where financial misconduct could affect club operations.[https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/mou-independent-football-regulator-fca]

What Changed

- Establishes a high-level framework of principles for cooperation between FCA and IFR, focusing on effective regulation at the football-financial services nexus.
Outlines how the organizations will work together, including information sharing on matters like club owners' financial dealings, licensing compliance, and enforcement where financial services...
Builds on prior MoUs (e.g., FCA-UKGC models) by addressing regulatory overlaps, with IFR gaining powers for investigations, enforcement sanctions, and revenue distribution resolutions under the...

Suggested Considerations

Review and map exposures: Firms should assess football-related client portfolios for IFR overlap (e.g., loans to clubs, owner financing) and prepare for dual FCA-IFR scrutiny.
Enhance information sharing protocols: Update compliance policies to respond promptly to IFR requests for data on regulated activities (e.g., under IFR's clause 65 powers), mirroring FCA's existing MoU frameworks.[https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/mou-independent-football-regulator-fca]
Incorporate IFR factors in due diligence: For owner suitability, align with IFR tests (fit/proper custodians, resource adequacy); flag potential divestment risks in advisory services.
Monitor joint enforcement: Participate in escalation procedures if disputes arise, ensuring internal records of regulatory remit discussions.

Key Dates

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

🇪🇺 ESMA policy_statement high

February 23rd 2026

ESMA simplifies MiFID II/ MiFIR obligations on market data

ESMA simplifies MiFID II/ MiFIR obligations on market data 23 February 2026 Guidelines and Technical standards Market data Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has withdrawn its guidelines on the MiFID II/ MiFIR obligations on market data , effective immediately, reflecting its ongoing commitment to simplifying rules and reducing unnecessary compliance burdens for market participants. The decision aligns the framewo...

AI Analysis

ESMA has immediately withdrawn its guidelines on MiFID II/MiFIR market data obligations to align with the new Regulatory Technical Standards on making market data available on a reasonable commercial basis (RTS on RCB), reducing compliance burdens for market participants. This simplifies the regulatory framework by eliminating overlapping soft-law guidance, focusing firms on binding RTS requirements for data transparency, non-discrimination, and cost-based pricing. It matters as it streamlines operations amid broader MiFID II/MiFIR reviews, lowering costs while maintaining market integrity.

What Changed

- Withdrawal of ESMA's previous guidelines on MiFID II/MiFIR market data obligations, effective immediately on 23 February 2026, to avoid overlap with binding rules.
Full alignment with RTS on RCB, which sets criteria for transparency, non-discrimination, and reasonable commercial basis pricing of market data by trading venues and approved publication...
Firms must now rely solely on RTS legal text for interpreting data provision, disclosure, and fee structures, without legacy interpretive guidance.

Suggested Considerations

Review and map internal policies, procedures, and data disclosure practices directly to RTS on RCB criteria for transparency, non-discrimination, and cost-based pricing.
For market data providers authorised before 23 November 2025: Use the transition period (until 22 August 2026) exclusively to renegotiate and align existing contractual arrangements, including pricing schedules, data packages, and service-level clauses, with RTS requirements.
Document compliance with RTS across asset classes and distribution channels; cease reliance on withdrawn guidelines.
Contact ESMA at RCB@esma.europa.eu for issues on RTS application or interpretative uncertainties.

Key Dates

23 November 2025

- RTS on RCB enters into force

23 February 2026

- Withdrawal of legacy ESMA guidelines takes effect immediately

22 August 2026

- End of transition period for pre-authorised market data providers to align contracts with RTS on RCB

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Immediate guideline withdrawal requires prompt policy updates to avoid supervisory misalignment, though the 22 August 2026 transition eases contract changes for legacy providers. This matters as it reduces ambiguity and burdens in a simplifying regulatory environment, but non-compliance risks enforcement under binding RTS amid MiFID II/MiFIR reviews; proactive alignment prevents future disruptions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation high

February 23rd 2026

ESMA consults on guarantees as CCP collateral and on certain aspects of CCP investment policy

ESMA consults on guarantees as CCP collateral and on certain aspects of CCP investment policy 23 February 2026 CCP The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has launched a public consultation following the review of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR 3). ESMA is encouraging all interested stakeholders, including non-financial counterparties (NFCs), to share their views about: the relevant conditions under which ...

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched a public consultation under EMIR 3 to gather stakeholder input on conditions for CCPs accepting public guarantees, public bank guarantees, and commercial bank guarantees as collateral, eligibility of debt instruments for CCP investment policies, and secured arrangements for emission allowances as margins or default fund contributions. This matters because it permanently broadens eligible collateral types and extends access to NFC clients, enhancing EU CCP efficiency, competitiveness, and accessibility amid liquidity pressures in energy and other markets.

What Changed

- Permanent expansion of eligible CCP collateral to include public guarantees, public bank guarantees, and commercial bank guarantees, with specified conditions for acceptance.
Criteria for deeming debt instruments as eligible financial instruments under CCP investment policies.
Requirements for highly secured arrangements to deposit emission allowances as margins or default fund contributions. These build on EMIR 3's measures to broaden collateral scope and entity coverage,...

Suggested Considerations

Review and Respond to Consultation: CCPs, clearing members, NFCs, and clients should analyze the paper, prepare responses to Annex 1 questions by 30 April 2026, and submit online; indicate confidentiality if needed.
Assess Internal Policies: CCPs must evaluate current collateral, investment, and emission allowance frameworks against proposed conditions; clearing members/NFCs should model impacts on liquidity and margin posting.
Monitor Developments: Track ESMA's final report and RTS submission; prepare for potential supervisory expectations on guarantee acceptance and debt instrument eligibility post-2026.
Engage with Industry: Join associations like EACH for coordinated feedback on risk-based approaches and proportionality.

Key Dates

End of 2026

- ESMA to submit final draft technical standards to the European Commission following final report preparation

30 April 2026 DEADLINE

- Consultation response deadline; submit online via ESMA portal, addressing specific questions with rationale

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Firms face a tight 2-month window (from 23 February 2026) to influence final RTS, with implementation likely in 2027+ affecting core clearing operations; delays risk non-compliance with broadened collateral rules amid ongoing liquidity strains, especially for NFCs in volatile markets like energy.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

February 23rd 2026

Launch of a dedicated page for the Luxembourgish covered bonds (“lettres de gage”) framework on the CSSF website

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇬 MAS News low

February 23rd 2026

Consumer Price Developments in January 2026

This January 2026 report contains an update of the latest consumer price developments in Singapore, prepared by MAS and the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇪🇺 ESMA Guidance high

February 20th 2026

ESMA publishes a supervisory briefing on the AAR representativeness obligation

ESMA publishes a supervisory briefing on the AAR representativeness obligation 20 February 2026 CCP The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published a supervisory briefing on the representativeness obligation linked to the active account requirement (AAR). The briefing sets out ESMA’s supervisory expectations for how counterparties should comply with and report on the AAR representativeness obligation. It provides guidanc...

AI Analysis

ESMA has published supervisory guidance clarifying how counterparties must comply with the **representativeness obligation** under the Active Account Requirement (AAR), a key component of EMIR 3 that mandates EU counterparties maintain active accounts at EU central counterparties (CCPs) and clear representative volumes of derivatives trades. This briefing is critical because market participants and regulators have held conflicting interpretations of the representativeness requirement, creating compliance uncertainty that this guidance now resolves.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Prudential / Capital Requirements

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement high

February 20th 2026

ESMA sanctions Regis-TR for serious breaches of organisational obligations

ESMA sanctions Regis-TR for serious breaches of organisational obligations 19 February 2026 Press Releases Securities Financing Transactions Supervision Trade Repositories The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the European Union’s (EU) financial markets regulator and supervisor, has fined the trade repository (TR) REGIS-TR, S.A. a total of EUR 1,374,000 for seven infringements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and the Securities Financing Transactions ...

AI Analysis

ESMA has fined REGIS-TR, S.A. €1,374,000 for seven negligent breaches of organisational obligations under EMIR and SFTR, marking the first SFTR enforcement action and ESMA's highest fine against a trade repository. The breaches involved deficiencies in policies, procedures, organisational structure, operational risk management, and data confidentiality, compromising SFTR reporting and market data integrity. This underscores ESMA's intensified enforcement on trade repositories (TRs) to ensure high-quality data for market surveillance and financial stability.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not new legislation, but it reinforces existing EMIR and SFTR requirements on TRs, particularly:
Policies and procedures: Must be adequate to ensure compliance, with clear roles and responsibilities for governing bodies (breaches under EMIR Art. 78(3) and SFTR Art.
Organisational structure: Must ensure business continuity and orderly functioning, especially for SFTR services (breach under SFTR).
Operational risk management: Identify and minimise risks via systems, controls, and procedures (breaches under EMIR and SFTR, Point (a) Section II Annex I EMIR).
Data confidentiality and integrity: Protect information received under EMIR and prevent misuse (breaches under EMIR). Fines were calculated per EMIR Art.

Suggested Considerations

For REGIS-TR specifically: Cease three ongoing breaches (policies/procedures under EMIR/SFTR; SFTR organisational structure for business continuity) per ESMA supervisory measures (EMIR Art. 73).
For all TRs: - Review and strengthen policies/procedures for clarity on governance roles/responsibilities.
Audit organisational structure for SFTR business continuity and orderly functioning.
Conduct operational risk assessments, implementing controls/systems to minimise risks under EMIR/SFTR.
Enhance data confidentiality/integrity protections and misuse prevention measures.

Key Dates

14 November 2013

- REGIS-TR initial registration with ESMA under EMIR

7 May 2020

- REGIS-TR registration extended to SFTR reporting

14 June 2024

- ESMA Supervisory Report identifying serious indications of breaches

17 June 2024

- Public notice references investigations leading to findings (dated in decision docs)

17 February 2026

- ESMA Board of Supervisors meeting discussing the case

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – As the first SFTR enforcement and record TR fine (€1.374M), it demonstrates ESMA's commitment to punitive action on negligence causing systemic data risks, directly threatening market integrity and surveillance. TRs face immediate remediation pressure (three breaches ongoing), with fines amplified by duration/systemic factors; non-TRs using TRs risk indirect exposure via poor data quality. Firms should prioritise audits now to avoid similar "negligent" findings.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

All Firms

🇪🇺 ECB Enforcement high

February 19th 2026

ECB sanctions J.P. Morgan for misreporting capital requirements

No description available.

AI Analysis

The ECB imposed €12.18 million in penalties on J.P. Morgan SE on 19 February 2026 for misreporting risk-weighted assets (RWAs) from 2019-2024 due to misclassification of corporate exposures (15 quarters) and improper exclusion of transactions in credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk calculations (21 quarters), both attributed to serious negligence and internal control failures. This enforcement action underscores the ECB's focus on accurate prudential reporting, as underreported RWAs led to overstated capital ratios, distorting supervisory oversight of the bank's risk profile and capital adequacy. Compliance teams must prioritize RWA calculation integrity to avoid similar "severe" and "moderately severe" sanctions under the ECB's penalty guide.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule change, but it reinforces existing requirements under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) for accurate RWA calculations, including proper classification of corporate exposures for credit risk and inclusion of all relevant transactions in CVA risk (which measures counterparty default risk in derivatives). The ECB applied its Guide to the method of setting administrative pecuniary penalties, categorizing breaches as "severe" (credit risk) and "moderately severe" (CVA risk), based on duration, negligence, and impact on supervisory transparency.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct immediate RWA process reviews: Audit corporate exposure classifications and CVA calculations for misreporting risks, ensuring compliance with CRR risk weights.
Strengthen internal controls: Implement robust validation mechanisms to detect errors timely, addressing "serious negligence" gaps highlighted by ECB.
Enhance reporting accuracy: Recalibrate models and data inputs for quarterly ECB submissions; test for overstatement of capital ratios via underreported RWAs.
Monitor ECB sanctions page (https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/banking/supervisory-sanctions/html/index.en.html) for updates and self-assess against penalty guide severity categories.
J.P. Morgan specifically: Pay €12.18 million and consider legal challenge under Article 263 TFEU.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The FCA's statement clarifies forbearance on overlapping notification requirements for admissions to trading under the new POATRs regime effective 19 January 2026, addressing confusion from removed block listing exemptions in UKLR. It matters because it provides temporary relief from duplicative RIS notifications for frequent issuers, preventing unintended supervisory burdens while the FCA consults on rule amendments.

What Changed

- POATRs and UKLR Updates: Effective 19 January 2026, PRM 1.6.4R requires issuers to notify a Regulatory Information Service (RIS) of any admission to trading within 60 days, allowing grouping of...
Overlapping UKLR Rules: Provisions in UKLR 6.4.4R(4), 13.3.20R(4), 14.3.17R(4), 16.3.16R(4), and 22.2.17R(4) require "as soon as possible" RIS notifications for new equity issues or public offers,...
Forbearance Policy: FCA will not take enforcement action for non-compliance with the "as soon as possible" rules for securities under prior block listings (unissued/offered before 19 January 2026,...
Upcoming Consultation: FCA intends to consult "shortly" on removing the conflicting UKLR provisions, aligning solely with PRM 1.6.4R's 60-day requirement.

Suggested Considerations

Review ongoing/future issuances against former block listing criteria: confirm securities unissued pre-19 January 2026 and same purpose to rely on forbearance.
Implement PRM 1.6.4R: Notify RIS within 60 days of any admission to trading, grouping where possible.
Monitor FCA announcements for consultation launch and updates; prepare responses if issuing frequently.
Document reliance on forbearance (e.g., internal memos linking to original block listing) for audit trails.
No immediate "as soon as possible" notifications needed under forbearance for qualifying cases.

Key Dates

19 January 2026

- POATRs regime and UKLR changes effective, including PRM 1.6.4R (60-day RIS notification) and deletion of UKLR 20.6 block listings

19 January 2026 DEADLINE

- Cut-off for securities under former block listings to qualify for forbearance (must not have been issued/offered prior)

Shortly after February 2026

- FCA consultation on removing UKLR 6.4.4R(4) and equivalents (no exact date specified)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Forbearance reduces immediate risk of enforcement for qualifying issuers, but ongoing POATRs compliance (60-day notifications) is mandatory. Matters for operational efficiency, as misalignment could lead to duplicative reporting costs; non-qualifying issuances risk breaches until consultation resolves.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

February 19th 2026

ESMA seeks input to streamline and simplify its market abuse guidelines

ESMA seeks input to streamline and simplify its market abuse guidelines 19 February 2026 Market Abuse Market Integrity The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has launched a consultation proposing amendments to its Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) guidelines on the delay in the disclosure of inside information. The proposals align the guidelines with the disclosure regime as amended by the Listing Act, ensuring issuers face fewer...

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched a consultation on amending its Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) guidelines on delaying disclosure of inside information, aligning them with changes introduced by the Listing Act to reduce issuer burdens and clarify requirements. This matters because it simplifies compliance for issuers by removing outdated delay justifications and adding new ones, effective from June 2026, potentially lowering administrative costs while maintaining market integrity.

What Changed

- Alignment with Listing Act: Guidelines will reflect MAR amendments, removing the requirement for immediate disclosure of inside information on protracted processes before completion (effective June...
New legitimate interests for delay: Adds scenarios such as public authority requests for non-disclosure, issuer need for more time to collect information, or involvement in multiple similar...
Elimination of "no misleading the public" condition: Removes Guideline 2 entirely, as the Listing Act deleted this from MAR; replaces with requirement that delayed disclosure must not contradict the...
Overall simplification: Reduces administrative burdens for issuers while providing clearer, non-exhaustive lists of delay situations.

Suggested Considerations

Respond to consultation: Submit feedback via ESMA's online .docx form by 29 April 2026, focusing on proposed amendments, additional legitimate interests, and interactions with prudential supervision (Annex IV of Consultation Paper).
Review and update policies: Assess current inside information disclosure procedures against proposed changes, particularly removing protracted process delays and incorporating new legitimate interests; prepare for non-contradiction with latest public announcements.
Train staff: Update compliance training on MAR delay conditions ahead of June 2026, ensuring alignment with Listing Act changes.
Monitor updates: Track ESMA's Q4 2026 final report for binding guidelines and adjust insider lists, PDMR notifications, and disclosure workflows accordingly.

Key Dates

19 February 2026

Consultation launch date

29 April 2026 DEADLINE

Consultation response deadline; (10-week period)

5 June 2026 DEADLINE

Entry into application of amended MAR disclosure regime; (issuers no longer required to immediately disclose protracted process inside information)

Q4 2026

ESMA final report and updated guidelines publication

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This is a consultation on simplifications that reduce burdens rather than impose new obligations, with changes not effective until June 2026—giving firms over four months post-consultation to adapt. It matters for issuers to engage now for influence and early policy alignment, avoiding future misalignment penalties under MAR, but lacks immediate enforcement risk.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation high

February 19th 2026

ESMA publishes list of supplementary deferrals for sovereign bonds

ESMA publishes list of supplementary deferrals for sovereign bonds 19 February 2026 Post Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), together with National Competent Authorities (NCAs), has agreed supplementary deferrals that may be applied on top of the standard Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR) deferral regime for sovereign bonds. ESMA and all NCAs, except the National Bank of Slovakia (NBS), have decided to allow the following supplementary deferrals: fo...

AI Analysis

ESMA has authorized **supplementary deferrals for sovereign bond post-trade transparency**, allowing market participants to omit transaction volumes from immediate publication for medium-sized trades on liquid bonds, with full disclosure required by end-of-day. This measure balances market transparency with liquidity protection in EU sovereign bond markets, effective May 4, 2026, with a compressed implementation timeline requiring immediate compliance planning.

What Changed

Scope of Supplementary Deferrals The decision permits volume omission deferrals for sovereign bonds classified as Group 1, Category 1 instruments (medium-size, liquid instruments) under MiFIR's post-trade transparency framework. Market operators and investment firms may defer publication of transaction volumes until end-of-trading-day, rather than the standard 15-minute deferral period. Regulatory Rationale ESMA determined that these deferrals are necessary to account for specific characteristics of sovereign bond markets, particularly protecting market liquidity and ensuring orderly price...

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Compliance Preparation (by May 4, 2026)
*System Configuration: Trading venues and investment firms must update post-trade reporting systems to implement volume omission deferrals for Group 1, Category 1 sovereign bonds, with automated end-of-day publication triggers.
*Instrument Classification: Establish processes to correctly identify which sovereign bonds qualify as Group 1, Category 1 under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 (RTS 2), referencing Table 2.6 of Annex III.
*APA Coordination: Approved Publication Arrangements must configure deferral management services to apply volume omission rules consistently across all reporting firms, with fallback procedures for system failures.
*Policy Documentation: Update post-trade transparency policies, procedures, and client disclosures to reflect the new deferral regime and explain the timing of volume publication.

Key Dates

February 17, 2026

- ESMA Board of Supervisors adopts decision

February 19, 2026

- ESMA publishes supplementary deferrals list

March 2, 2026

- Original implementation date (subsequently extended)

May 4, 2026

- **Effective date for supplementary deferrals application**

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Payments & E-Money Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

February 19th 2026

Publication,FSA publishes English translation of monthly magazine, Access FSA No.267

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Payment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

February 19th 2026

CP3/26 – PRA rule changes to accommodate HM Treasury’s Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime

Consultation paper 3/26

AI Analysis

The PRA's CP3/26 proposes rule amendments to align its Rulebook with HM Treasury's (HMT) Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (OPRR), which restates and modifies existing CRR equivalence provisions for treating overseas entities' exposures as preferential "exposures to institutions." This matters for **PRA-authorised firms** as it clarifies capital treatment for cross-border exposures, reduces interpretive burdens, and ensures consistency post-Brexit, advancing the PRA's safety and soundness objective while facilitating HMT designations.

What Changed

- Credit Risk Standardised Approach (SA): Exposures to overseas credit institutions, investment firms, or exchanges treated as "exposures to institutions" only if from UK or HMT-designated OPRR...
IRB Approach: Preserves CRR Article 107(3) effect by aligning exposure class allocation with SA's updated "exposures to institutions" concept.
Large Exposures: Amends Rule 1.3 definition of "institution" to limit preferential treatment to UK or OPRR-designated overseas entities.
General Scope: Applies changes across PRA Rulebook for consistency; not relevant to credit unions or third-country branches.

Suggested Considerations

Review and respond to consultation by 2 April 2026, indicating consent for name/organisation publication and any confidentiality claims.
Assess current exposures to overseas institutions/exchanges against proposed OPRR criteria; model impacts on capital requirements under SA, IRB, and large exposures rules.
Update internal policies on exposure classification once final rules published; monitor HMT OPRR designations for affected jurisdictions.
Indicate response as individual or organisational; personal data handled per Bank of England privacy notice.

Key Dates

Thursday 2 April 2026 DEADLINE

- Consultation response deadline; submit to CP3_26@bankofengland.co.uk or PRA at 20 Moorgate, London EC2R 6DA

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Firms must engage promptly on consultation (deadline ~10 weeks from publication) to influence outcomes; changes clarify but could increase capital for non-designated overseas exposures, impacting safety/soundness and competitiveness. Failure to adapt risks non-compliance with updated Rulebook and higher prudential burdens.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

February 19th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Sudan

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat den Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) geändert.

AI Analysis

The Swiss Federal Department for Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) has amended Annex 2 of the Ordinance of 25 May 2005 on Measures against Sudan (SR 946.231.18), updating Switzerland's sanctions list in alignment with UN and international developments. This matters for Swiss financial institutions as it imposes immediate asset freeze and reporting obligations on newly designated individuals and entities linked to threats against Sudan's peace and security, including RSF support and mercenary activities. Compliance teams must screen and act swiftly to avoid FINMA enforcement under supervisory law.

What Changed

- Amendment to Annex 2 of SR 946.231.18 by WBF, adding seven individuals to the Sudan sanctions list, mirroring recent UN-aligned updates (e.g., UK additions on 5 February 2026 for persons like...
Sanctions include asset freezes, prohibitions on dealings with designated persons' funds or economic resources, and mandatory reporting to authorities, consistent with Switzerland's implementation of...
Updates reflect global coordination, with UNSC Resolution 2791 (2025) extending the Sudan regime to 12 October 2026, emphasizing targeted measures against human rights violations, humanitarian...

Suggested Considerations

Immediate screening: Review client databases, transactions, and assets against updated Annex 2 for the seven new designations; freeze any matching funds or resources without delay.
Reporting: Notify FINMA or relevant authorities (e.g., State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO) of any holdings or suspicions; relevant firms must report to OFSI equivalents in Switzerland.
No dealings: Cease all transactions, payments, or benefits to/from designated persons unless licensed; maintain records for 10+ years per Embargo Act.
Controls update: Enhance sanctions screening tools, train staff, and audit AML/sanctions programs for Sudan-specific risks like RSF financing or mercenaries.
Licensing check: Apply for exceptions via SECO if needed for humanitarian or existing obligations.

Key Dates

5 February 2026

- UK adds six individuals to Sudan sanctions list (e.g., SUD0026 to SUD0031), informing Swiss alignment

18 February 2026

- Switzerland publicly notes addition of seven individuals to Sudan list via ACAMS report

19 February 2026 DEADLINE

- WBF amends Annex 2 of SR 946.231.18, effective immediately for compliance (publication date)

12 March 2026 DEADLINE

- UN Panel of Experts interim report due on Sudan sanctions implementation

12 October 2026

- UNSC Sudan sanctions regime extension expires unless renewed

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Immediate asset freeze obligations apply from publication (19 February 2026), with FINMA's enforcement powers (coercive measures under administrative law) risking fines, reputational damage, or license revocation for non-compliance. This escalates amid ongoing Sudan conflict, UN extensions, and multi-jurisdictional alignment, heightening cross-border transaction risks.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA News low

February 19th 2026

Upcoming changes to the Euribor Panel

Upcoming changes to the Euribor Panel 18 February 2026 Benchmarks The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, is issuing a statement on the upcoming changes to the Euribor panel, in its capacity as supervisor of the European Money Market Institute (EMMI), administrator of Euribor. This statement concerns the announcement by EMMI that Barclays Bank PLC (BBPLC), based in the United Kingdom, will withdraw from the Euribor panel. The ...

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

February 18th 2026

SEC Proposes Amendments to Reduce Burdens in Reporting of Fund Portfolio Holdings

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 18th 2026

Circular CSSF 26/907 (only in French)

Exigences applicables au réviseur d’entreprises agréé spécial auprès des établissements de crédit émetteurs de lettres de gage

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 26/907, published on February 18, 2026, establishes requirements for **approved special statutory auditors (réviseurs d'entreprises agréés spéciaux) serving credit institutions that issue mortgage bonds (lettres de gage)**. This circular formalizes the governance and audit standards applicable to a specialized auditor role within Luxembourg's credit institution framework, ensuring enhanced oversight of entities engaged in mortgage bond issuance.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇪🇺 ESMA Enforcement medium

February 18th 2026

ESMA supports the simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards and suggests targeted adjustments

ESMA supports the simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards and suggests targeted adjustments 18 February 2026 Issuer disclosure Press Releases Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority, the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has delivered its opinion on the draft revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) developed by EFRAG. ESMA strongly supports the European Commission’s goal of enhancing competitiveness and growth through ...

AI Analysis

ESMA has issued an opinion supporting EFRAG's draft simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the CSRD, praising improvements in readability and materiality focus while recommending targeted adjustments to enhance investor protection and financial stability. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals upcoming refinements to sustainability disclosures, with pragmatic supervision promised during the transition, potentially reducing short-term burdens but requiring monitoring of final delegated act adoption by summer 2026.

What Changed

The draft revised ESRS introduce simplifications such as improved readability, language, format, reduced volume of requirements, and a focus on material matters.
Introduce time limits to certain permanent reliefs (e.g., reliefs #3, #4, #9, #11 on quantitative information for anticipated financial effects until FY 2029, and metrics).
Refine requirements on transition plans (e.g., consistent disclosure of absolute financed emissions and contextual information).
Strengthen reporting on sustainability competences of administrative, management, and supervisory bodies.
Enhance transparency on financial resources allocated to sustainability actions.

Suggested Considerations

Monitor Commission process: Track final delegated act by summer 2026, incorporating ESMA/EBA/EIOPA/ECB opinions; review full ESMA opinion PDF for detailed recommendations.
Assess current reporting: Evaluate use of permanent/temporary reliefs (e.g., #3/#4 on quantitative data, #9/#11 on metrics) and prepare for time limits; refine transition plans for emissions/targets.
Enhance governance disclosures: Strengthen reporting on sustainability competences in management/supervisory bodies and financial resources for actions.
Review subsidiary exemptions: Check materiality exclusions for sustainability risks/opportunities in consolidated statements.
Prepare for supervision: Leverage NCAs flexibility during transition; integrate into data governance and risk systems per CSRD implementation trends.

Key Dates

Summer 2026

- European Commission aims to adopt revised ESRS into a delegated act, considering ESMA, EBA, EIOPA, ECB opinions

FY 2029 (reporting in 2030)

- End of certain temporary reliefs on quantitative information for anticipated financial effects (if ESMA recommendations adopted)

First years post

adoption (2026+); - Learning curve period with pragmatic NCAs supervision and flexibility in examinations

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Not yet finalized (pending summer 2026 adoption), with pragmatic supervision promised, reducing immediate pressure; however, matters due to potential tightening of reliefs and disclosures impacting FY2026+ reporting, investor protection focus, and interoperability needs. Firms should prioritize if heavily using reliefs or with complex transition plans, as non-adjustment risks supervisory scrutiny post-learning curve.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerBankInsurance

🇪🇺 ESMA Guidance high

February 18th 2026

ESMA publishes statement supporting the smooth implementation of the Listing Act – simplifying prospectus compliance for issuers

ESMA publishes statement supporting the smooth implementation of the Listing Act – simplifying prospectus compliance for issuers 18 February 2026 Prospectus The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has issued a statement with practical guidance to national competent authorities (NCAs), issuers, and their advisors on the application of the revised prospectus framework introduced by the Listing Act. ESMA clarifies that any regis...

AI Analysis

ESMA has issued a public statement providing practical guidance on implementing changes to the Prospectus Regulation (PR) under the Listing Act, clarifying the transitional regime for registration documents and universal registration documents approved or filed until 4 June 2026, allowing their continued use in prospectuses. This matters because it reduces compliance burdens for issuers accessing capital markets while preserving investor protection, enabling smoother transitions amid upcoming Level 2 measures. Issuers and advisors can rely on this non-binding guidance as ESMA expects NCAs to follow it.

What Changed

- Transitional regime clarification under Article 48a PR: Registration documents and universal registration documents approved or filed until 4 June 2026 fall within the Article 48a(1) transitional...
Interim disclosure guidance for new prospectus types: Until the Delegated Act amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980 applies (expected post-5 March 2026), EU Follow-on prospectuses...
Standardized presentation: Listing Act introduces clearer prospectus formats (e.g., banning generic risk factors), applying from March 2026 for secondary/growth prospectuses and June 2026 for...

Suggested Considerations

Review and file/approve registration/universal registration documents before 4 June 2026 to leverage transitional regime; ensure ongoing supplements/amendments under old PR.
For EU Follow-on/Growth prospectuses pre-Delegated Act: Structure per PR Annexes IV/V/VII/VIII; voluntarily adopt recommended Delegated Act disclosures for compliance with Articles 14a/15a.
Advisors/issuers: Rely on ESMA statement for NCA interactions; update templates/processes for standardized formats and ESG disclosures (e.g., alignment with ICMA Green Bond Principles or EU Taxonomy if advertised).
NCAs: Apply ESMA's clarified transitional approach to avoid gaps.
Monitor Delegated Act adoption (likely pre-5 March 2026) and ESMA Level 2 technical standards.

Key Dates

March 2026

Listing Act provisions for secondary and growth issuance prospectuses enter application

5 March 2026

Expected non-application date of Delegated Act amending (EU) 2019/980; interim PR Annexes IV/V/VII/VIII and Articles 14a/15a apply, with recommended Delegated Act disclosures

Until 4 June 2026

Registration/universal registration documents approved/filed fall under Article 48a transitional regime; usable thereafter until validity ends

5 June 2026 / 10 June 2026

Bulk of Listing Act provisions (including standard prospectuses) enter application; new Level 2 requirements apply from related ESMA technical advice

H1 2026

Potential NCA flexibility for early implementation of new requirements if available

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Immediate relevance today (18 February 2026) for ongoing prospectus preparations, as it clarifies transitional use of existing documents and interim disclosures amid imminent deadlines (March/June 2026). Failure to align risks invalidation of documents or heightened scrutiny, but guidance eases burden reduction—critical for issuers timing listings to minimize costs while ensuring investor protection.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

February 18th 2026

CSSF Newsletter No 301 – February 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 18th 2026

SSM Calendar Claude Wampach – 11/2025

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Payments & E-Money

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance critical

February 18th 2026

Annex of Circular CSSF 22/822

1) high-risk jurisdictions on which enhanced due diligence and, where appropriate, counter-measures are imposed2) jurisdictions under increased monitoring of the FATFVersion of 17 February 2026

AI Analysis

The Annex of Circular CSSF 22/822 (Version of 17 February 2026) is Luxembourg's Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier's implementation guidance on FATF (Financial Action Task Force) designations of high-risk jurisdictions requiring enhanced due diligence and counter-measures, as well as jurisdictions under increased monitoring. This document is critical for Luxembourg-regulated financial institutions because it operationalizes international AML/CFT standards into binding compliance obligations, directly impacting customer acceptance, transaction monitoring, and correspondent banking relationships.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

February 18th 2026

ASIC commences new review of advice licensees that use lead generation services

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

February 18th 2026

Fundhost pays infringement notice for making misleading representations about Polen Capital Global Growth Fund

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Crypto & Digital Assets Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF Consultation high

February 17th 2026

The AMF invites financial market participants to AMLA’s consultations on three draft AML/CFT implementing standards

Anti-money Laundering Asset management The AMF invites financial market participants to AMLA’s consultations on three draft AML/CFT implementing standards

AI Analysis

The AMF is urging financial market participants, especially in asset management and related sectors, to engage in AMLA's public consultations on three draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) under the new EU AML/CFT package, covering customer due diligence (CDD), identification of business relationships/transactions, and enforcement measures. These RTS aim to provide harmonized, proportionate implementation guidance, significantly impacting CDD processes and supervisory consistency across the EU, with underlying rules applying from 10 July 2027.[Source URL: https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/amf-invites-financial-market-participants-amlas-consultations-three-draft-amlcft-implementing#xts=607212&xtor=RSS-11&type=RSS]

What Changed

- CDD RTS: Builds on EBA's prior draft with AMLA refinements for legal clarity, proportionality, and risk adaptation; specifies information/sources for identity verification of natural persons/legal...
Business Relationships/Occasional/Linked Transactions RTS: Defines criteria under AMLR Article 19(9) to harmonize identification, ensuring consistent EU-wide application beyond basic...
Enforcement RTS (Pecuniary Sanctions/Administrative Measures): Under AMLD6 Article 53(10), standardizes supervisor assessment/categorization of breaches for proportionate, effective, dissuasive...

Suggested Considerations

Gap analysis and preparation: Assess current CDD/business identification/enforcement processes against drafts; identify changes for remote onboarding, PEPs, sectoral measures (e.g., asset manager Article 17 scenarios), and sanctions screening; set milestones for policy/system updates by July 2027.
Engage hearings: Attend 24 March 2026 public hearing for CDD/business RTS.
Monitor post-consultation: Track AMLA/EC adoption (expected Q1 2026 for some related RTS) and national implementations (e.g., CSSF data reporting).

Key Dates

9 February 2026

- Consultations opened by AMLA on three draft RTS.[Source URL: https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/amf-invites-financial-market-participants-amlas-consultations-three-draft-amlcft-implementing#xts=607212&xtor=RSS-11&type=RSS]

9 March 2026

- Consultation closes on RTS for pecuniary sanctions/administrative measures

24 March 2026

- Online public hearing on CDD and business relationships RTS

8 May 2026

- Consultations close on CDD RTS and business relationships/linked transactions RTS.[Source URL: https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/amf-invites-financial-market-participants-amlas-consultations-three-draft-amlcft-implementing#xts=607212&xtor=RSS-11&type=RSS]

10 July 2026

- AMLA submits final draft RTS to European Commission for adoption

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - These RTS operationalize core AMLR/AMLD6 mandates with July 2027 applicability, demanding immediate consultation input to influence final rules and 18-month lead time for system/process overhauls (e.g., CDD verification sources, harmonized transaction linking). Failure to engage risks non-compliant frameworks amid AMLA's push for EU-wide consistency, elevated direct supervision risks, and stricter enforcement; asset managers face acute challenges from intermediary distribution rules.[Source URL:...

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerCrypto ExchangeAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 17th 2026

Update of the CSSF FAQ concerning the Luxembourg Law of 17 December 2010 with regard to the portfolio transparency requirements for UCITS ETFs and the holding of ancillary liquid assets

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CSSF has updated its FAQ on portfolio transparency requirements for UCITS ETFs, relaxing disclosure frequency from monthly to quarterly publication of detailed holdings while maintaining daily information sharing with market makers and authorized participants. This change aligns Luxembourg's regulatory framework more closely with Ireland's semi-transparent ETF approach and is designed to attract active asset managers to the Luxembourg domicile by reducing proprietary information exposure.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Insurance & Pensions

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

February 17th 2026

CP2/26 – Reforms to securitisation requirements

Consultation paper 2/26

AI Analysis

CP2/26 is a PRA consultation paper proposing targeted reforms to UK securitisation rules to reduce prescriptiveness and burden while maintaining prudential soundness, building on recent CRR restatements. It matters for compliance professionals as it streamlines due diligence, risk retention, disclosures, and capital treatments, potentially lowering costs for PRA-authorised firms in the securitisation market amid Basel 3.1 implementation. These changes aim to enhance proportionality without compromising investor protection or oversight.

What Changed

The proposals amend PRA rules and supervisory guidance in the Securitisation Part of the PRA Rulebook, including:
Due diligence: Remove prescriptive verification of credit-granting criteria (Chapter 2 Article 9), risk retention (Chapter 2 Article 6 and Chapter 4), STS criteria, specific information availability,...
Risk retention: Introduce a new combined modality merging two existing ones.
Market disclosure (transparency): Streamline for all securitisations; amend underlying documentation, delete PRA templates (use revised FCA Handbook templates), disapply templates for investor...
Regulatory reporting: Disapply COREP C14.00/C14.01 for single-loan retail securitisations; introduce consistent non-performing exposure (NPE) definition.

Suggested Considerations

Review and respond: Analyse proposals against current operations; submit feedback by 18 May 2026 to CP2_26@bankofengland.co.uk, indicating confidentiality and publication consent.
Gap analysis: Assess due diligence processes, risk retention setups, disclosure templates, reporting (e.g., COREP), and capital models for resecuritisations/MGS loans; update for proportionality.
Coordinate with FCA: Align on shared templates/transparency (per FCA CP26/6); prepare for repository shift.
Policy updates: Revise internal policies, training, and systems for new risk retention modality, reduced verifications, and readability improvements post-final PS.
Monitor legislation: Track HM Treasury SI and PRA policy statement for final rules.

Key Dates

1 January 2026

- Related CRR/Solvency II restatement (PS12/25) already effective, preserving core securitisation requirements

18 May 2026 DEADLINE

- Consultation response deadline

1 January 2027

- Expected implementation aligning with Basel 3.1 and CRR restatement (PS3/26), with transitional arrangements to 2030

Post

SI (TBD); - Changes to repository requirements effective upon HM Treasury Statutory Instrument amending UK Securitisation Regulation 2024

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Proposals reduce burden (e.g., less prescriptive due diligence, streamlined disclosures) but require immediate review ahead of 18 May 2026 deadline and 1 January 2027 implementation, aligning with Basel 3.1. Non-response risks misaligned systems during CRR restatement transition; benefits include cost savings and proportionality, but firms must validate ongoing compliance with retained prudential standards.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsuranceAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

February 17th 2026

ASIC cancels AFS licence of Superfast AM Pty Ltd

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

February 17th 2026

DORA – Submission timeframe for register of information for third-country branches of credit institutions having their head office in a third country

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

BankPayment Provider

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 17th 2026

FAQ concerning the Luxembourg Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment (Updated)

Version 23

AI Analysis

This CSSF FAQ (Version 23, updated 17 February 2026) provides interpretive guidance on the Luxembourg Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment (UCIs), covering UCITS, Part II UCIs, SIFs, and SICARs. It matters for compliance professionals as it clarifies authorisation processes, investment rules, and supervisory expectations, ensuring alignment with evolving EU frameworks like AIFMD and MiCAR. The update, effective today, addresses recent regulatory shifts including crypto-asset integration.

What Changed

- Authorisation Requirements: UCIs require CSSF approval of constitutive documents (articles, management regulations), depositary selection, and management company/AIFM applications for contractual...
Crypto-Asset Updates (aligned with separate but related FAQ Version 7): Replaces "virtual assets" with "crypto-assets" per MiCAR (EU 2023/1114); UCITS and retail AIFs (non-well-informed investors)...
Investment Policies and Liquidity Management: Funds must detail objectives, strategies, asset classes, restrictions, borrowing, and conflicts; look-through for intermediary vehicles per ESMA/AIFMD...
Risk Spreading Exemptions: Limits do not apply to OECD/EU-guaranteed securities or UCIs with comparable risk-spreading.
Depositary Role in Crypto: Luxembourg depositaries can custody crypto-assets with safeguards and CSSF notification; responsibility varies by model (depositary or MiCAR provider).

Suggested Considerations

Review and Update Documents: Align UCI constitutive documents, investment policies, and sales documents with clarified rules on strategies, LMTs, conflicts, and risk-spreading; apply look-through for intermediaries.
Crypto-Specific: For >10% NAV exposure, apply for "Other-Other Fund-Crypto-assets" extension (custody, valuation, AML/CFT plans, expertise); notify CSSF for depositary crypto custody; implement heightened AML/CFT due diligence per FATF/Luxembourg assessments.
Authorisation/Amendments: Submit for CSSF approval on new setups, manager changes, or sub-funds (esp. SICAV multi-sub-funds with EU cross-border services).
Governance and Reporting: Ensure RC/RR demonstrate crypto risk understanding; update disclosures for investors on risks, LMTs, and fair treatment.
Ongoing Compliance: Use FAQ/Compilation for RAIFs/SIFs/SICARs/Part II UCIs; auditors/managers confirm tax-exempt status for SICARs.

Key Dates

20 May 2025

No description available.

AI Analysis

The ECB imposed a €7.55 million periodic penalty payment on Crédit Agricole for failing to complete a climate-related and environmental (C&E) risk materiality assessment by the May 31, 2024 deadline, marking the second enforcement action in the ECB's escalating shift from guidance to active enforcement on climate risk supervision. This enforcement demonstrates that the ECB is moving beyond symbolic warnings to substantial financial penalties, signaling that banks must treat climate risk identification and assessment as mandatory compliance obligations rather than discretionary best practices.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ECB source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements ESG Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇺🇸 SEC News low

February 13th 2026

SEC Announces 45th Annual Small Business Forum to Improve Capital-Raising Policy

The Securities and Exchange Commission will host the agency’s 45th Annual Government Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation at SEC headquarters in Washington, D.C., on March 9 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ET. The event will be webcast live. …

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerFintech

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

February 13th 2026

Basic statistical data on UCIs – December 2025 (only in French)

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

February 13th 2026

Minutes of the Market Participants Group meeting – 12 February 2026

The Market Participants Group (MPG) is a senior-level forum for financial market participants to share their views on relevant themes and narratives in financial markets with members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Investment Management Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Net assets of UCIs

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Consumer Protection / Conduct

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Investment Management Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Breakdown according to currency

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Consumer Protection / Conduct

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Origin of UCI initiators in Luxembourg

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Development of net assets and number of UCIs

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Number of UCIs

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Investment policy of UCIs

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

February 13th 2026

Net assets of UCIs according to SFDR (Updated)

Situation as at 31 December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Investment Management

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 12th 2026

Circular letter

AML/CFT standardised data collection taking place in 2026

AI Analysis

The CSSF Circular Letter 2026-02-12 announces a standardized data collection exercise on AML/CFT for supervised entities, scheduled for 2026, aimed at enhancing regulatory oversight of money laundering and terrorist financing risks. This matters because it signals intensified CSSF scrutiny on AML/CFT compliance, requiring firms to prepare structured data submissions that could inform future supervisory actions, risk assessments, and enforcement. As part of broader CSSF AML/CFT initiatives, non-compliance risks fines or heightened inspections.

What Changed

- Introduction of standardized AML/CFT data collection: CSSF mandates uniform reporting formats for collecting data on AML/CFT risks, controls, and practices across supervised sectors, building on...
Alignment with ongoing AML/CFT enhancements: Complements recent governance-focused circulars (e.g., Circular 26/906 on central administration and risk management for payment/e-money institutions) by...
No explicit new obligations beyond preparation for data submission, but implies deeper integration of tax-related AML indicators and sub-sector risk updates, as seen in related CSSF activities.

Suggested Considerations

Assess and document AML/CFT data readiness: Inventory current risk assessments, transaction monitoring logs, KYC processes, SAR filings, and third-party oversight records in standardized formats; map to proportionality factors (e.g., transaction volumes, outsourcing).
Update governance and controls: Ensure compliance functions have independence, direct board reporting, and audit coverage of AML/CFT; test ICT resilience for monitoring continuity.
Conduct internal reviews: Perform gap analyses against Circular 26/906 (e.g., fund safeguarding, escalation protocols) and recent conference topics (e.g., terrorist financing, tax indicators); remediate deficiencies with board-approved plans.
Prepare for submission: Designate resources for data compilation; cooperate fully with CSSF/FIU requests, including transfer-of-funds information under EU 2015/847.
Engage auditors: Leverage approved auditors for validation of AML/CFT effectiveness ahead of collection.

Key Dates

2026 (exact date TBD) DEADLINE

AML/CFT standardised data collection exercise; Firms must submit required data during this period; preparation recommended immediately given today's date (12 February 2026)

20 January 2026 DEADLINE

Issuance of related Circular 26/906; Establishes governance baselines (e.g., compliance independence, risk proportionality) informing data collection expectations

26 January 2026

CSSF AML/CFT Conference for Specialised PFS; Provided updates on sub-sector risks, terrorist financing reviews, and FIU insights relevant to data preparation

28 January 2026 DEADLINE

Conference materials published; Available for download to guide compliance alignment

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – With data collection in 2026 underway today (12 February 2026), firms face immediate preparation needs amid recent enforcement (e.g., EUR 102,000 fine on depositary for AML-related gaps) and conferences signaling sub-sector focus. This elevates AML/CFT as a supervisory priority, potentially triggering on-site inspections, fines, or remediation orders for inadequate data/risks; proactive alignment prevents escalation in a risk-based regime.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇮🇪 CBI Speech medium

February 12th 2026

Increasing investment sustainably is key for Irish economy - Central Bank of Ireland Deputy Governor Vasileios Madouros

Central Bank of Ireland Deputy Governor Vasileios Madouros spoke at Technological University Dublin on the need to increase domestic investment over the next decade to support Ireland’s long-term economic success. Looking back, Deputy Governor Madouros discussed how, despite very strong economic growth, investment in key domestic sectors has been relatively subdued over the past decade. Looking ahead, like many other countries, Ireland is facing profound economic and societal shifts in years ...

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance low

February 12th 2026

FAQ concerning Master/Feeder Structures (Updated)

Version 3

AI Analysis

This CSSF FAQ (Version 2, July 2013, with updates through 24 June 2013 and 11 July 2013) provides guidance on master-feeder structures for UCITS funds under the Luxembourg Law of 12 July 2010 (the "2010 Law"), addressing financial reporting, performance disclosure, and operational requirements. It matters for Luxembourg-domiciled UCITS managers and depositaries as it clarifies compliance with UCITS Directive rules on aggregation of charges, audit irregularities, and past performance in cross-border master-feeder setups, reducing ambiguity in documentation and investor communications.

What Changed

- Financial reporting for aggregate charges (Art 82(2) 2010 Law): When master and feeder UCITS have different year-ends, feeder must present master charges for the same period if possible; otherwise,...
Disclosure of irregularities (CSSF Regulation 10-05 Art 27(e)): Present in notes to financial statements or "other information" section of annual report.
Past performance rules (Art 159(3)c) 2010 Law and Commission Regulation (EU) 583/2010): Feeders converting to new masters cannot refer to pre-conversion past performance; masters converting from...
Document is periodically updated; CSSF reserves right to alter positions—firms must monitor website.

Suggested Considerations

Review and amend master-feeder agreements (per Art 79(1) 2010 Law) to require masters provide charge/fee data to feeders.
Ensure financial statements/annual reports disclose irregularities in specified sections and aggregate charges with audit report caveats if periods misalign.
Update KIIDs and marketing materials for past performance compliance, disclosing conversions/material changes per Regulation 583/2010 Articles 17, 19, 35.
Implement processes for ad hoc financial statements when accounting years differ, allocating audit/preparation fees appropriately.
Monitor CSSF website regularly for FAQ updates.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: low—This 2013 guidance (Version 2) is outdated relative to 2026, with no new enforcement actions noted, but remains relevant for legacy UCITS master-feeder structures under the 2010 Law. It matters for audit/financial close processes and investor disclosures to avoid CSSF scrutiny, particularly in cross-border setups where ESMA UCITS rules apply; non-compliance risks reporting errors or investor complaints.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 12th 2026

CSSF FAQ – Use of Securities Financing Transactions by UCITS (Updated)

This publication is a CSSF FAQ in relation to the use by Luxembourg-domiciled UCITS of the following Securities Financing Transactions: securities lending transactions, reverse repurchase agreement transactions and repurchase agreement transactions. The objective of the FAQ is to bring further clarity concerning the use by UCITS of these SFTs, thereby taking into account the applicable regulatory framework as well as the supervisory experienced gained by the CSSF over the last years.Version 2

AI Analysis

This CSSF FAQ (Version 2) provides guidance on the use of securities financing transactions (SFTs)—specifically securities lending, reverse repurchase agreements, and repurchase agreements—by Luxembourg-domiciled UCITS, clarifying regulatory requirements based on the applicable framework and CSSF's supervisory experience. It matters because it updates prior guidance to reflect evolved practices, helping UCITS managers ensure compliant SFT usage amid heightened scrutiny on liquidity, risk management, and investor protection in Luxembourg's fund sector.

What Changed

The document is an updated FAQ (Version 2), originally published on 18 December 2020 and revised on 12 February 2026, but the provided content does not detail specific changes from Version 1 beyond incorporating recent supervisory experience and regulatory framework updates. It emphasizes clarity on SFT eligibility, operational controls, and risk mitigation for UCITS, without introducing new prohibitions or mandates visible in the summary; full details require accessing the PDF (201.4Kb).

Suggested Considerations

Review and update policies: UCITS managers must assess current SFT programs against the FAQ's clarifications, ensuring alignment with regulatory framework (e.g., UCITS Directive) and CSSF supervisory expectations on risk, collateral, and transparency.
Enhance disclosures: Update fund prospectuses, KIIDs, and annual reports to reflect SFT usage, risks, and revenues, per CSSF emphasis on investor clarity.
Conduct gap analysis: Audit SFT counterparties, collateral management, and liquidity tools for compliance; remediate any deviations based on gained supervisory experience.
Train staff and delegates: Implement training on updated FAQ to cover securities lending, repos, and reverse repos specifics.
Monitor ongoing use: Maintain records of SFT volumes, counterparties, and performance for CSSF inspections; integrate with broader UCI regulatory updates like risk-spreading.

Key Dates

18 December 2020

Original publication date of Version 1

12 February 2026

Update date for Version 2; (effective immediately as non-binding guidance)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – The 12 February 2026 update coincides with today's date, signaling immediate relevance for Luxembourg UCITS engaging in SFTs, which are common for yield enhancement but carry liquidity and counterparty risks. Non-compliance risks supervisory actions, given CSSF's focus on practical experience; firms should prioritize review to avoid findings in upcoming audits or inspections, especially amid parallel 2026 updates on UCI investments.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

February 12th 2026

We have signed an Exchange of Letters with the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA). IFSCA is the unified regulator for financial institutions operating in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City), India’s first international financial services centre.This agreement affirms both authorities’ commitment to develop our regulatory relationship.Download our letter (PDF)The letters set out the intention to share regulatory knowledge and best practice to support the ...

AI Analysis

The FCA has signed an Exchange of Letters with India's IFSCA, the regulator for GIFT City, to foster regulatory cooperation, knowledge sharing, and stronger links between UK financial markets and GIFT City. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals expanding cross-border ties, potentially easing market access and harmonizing standards for firms operating between the UK and India, amid the FCA's broader global outreach strategy. No binding rules are imposed, but it sets the stage for future alignment in areas like fintech and financial services.

What Changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements imposed by this Exchange of Letters. It is a non-binding agreement focused on:
Sharing regulatory knowledge and best practices.
Supporting financial services development in both jurisdictions.
Promoting links between GIFT City and UK markets. The letters affirm commitment to developing the regulatory relationship, with an additional step of posting an FCA Financial Services Attaché to the...

Suggested Considerations

binding nature. Recommended proactive steps for compliance teams:
Review and download the full Exchange of Letters (PDF available via FCA site) to understand shared priorities.
Assess current India/GIFT City exposures and prepare for potential future information-sharing requests or aligned standards.
Monitor FCA news for follow-up developments, such as joint guidance on fintech or market access https://www.fca.org.uk/news.
Engage with FCA international teams if planning cross-border activities in GIFT City.

Key Dates

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 11th 2026

Guidance for interpretation and resolution of CSSF error messages related to the submission of the DORA register

Guidance allowing financial entities to identify the National Competent Authority to which their register of information has to be submitted.

AI Analysis

This CSSF guidance document, published on 11 February 2026, provides detailed explanations and resolution steps for error messages encountered during the submission of the DORA Register of Information (RoI) via the eDesk portal, specifically for the 2026 submission cycle. It matters because it enables Luxembourg financial entities to ensure compliant submissions amid enhanced validation checks on more data fields, avoiding re-submission delays and supporting timely transmission to the ESAs by CSSF deadlines. Non-compliance risks supervisory scrutiny under DORA's ICT risk management framework.

What Changed

- Enhanced validation checks for the 2026 RoI submission: Applies ESA-defined checks (last updated April 2025) to more data fields to improve data quality, compared to prior cycles.
Specific error resolutions detailed, including requirements for LEI code communication to CSSF beforehand, correct reference date ('2025-12-31') in file naming, plain-CSV files in predefined .zip...
Mandatory inclusion of all tables (even empty) in FilingIndicators.csv set to 'true', with matching identification codes across parent-child records.
Builds on prior CSSF guides, emphasizing eDesk role "DORA Reporting" assignment and ESAs' technical standards. No new regulatory requirements under DORA itself; this refines technical submission...

Suggested Considerations

Assign "DORA Reporting" role in eDesk to dedicated employee(s) per user guide.
Communicate LEI code to CSSF line supervisor prior to first submission to enable upload.
Prepare RoI in plain-CSV files within .zip following ESAs' folder structure/file naming (reference date '2025-12-31'); include all tables in FilingIndicators.csv (even empty, set to 'true').
Test submissions against listed error codes (e.g., ICTO007 for LEI, identification mismatches); resolve per guidance sections (e.g., Sections 3.2.2, 5.1.2, 6).
Consult ESAs' EBA resources (data point model, validation rules, FAQs) and CSSF guides (e.g., submission guide, guidance tables).

Key Dates

30 April 2025 DEADLINE

- CSSF re-submission deadline post-validation for 2025; analogous for 2026 if errors detected

May 2025

No description available.

AI Analysis

This CSSF communiqué announces the availability of updated UCI Reports (SAQ, SR, and ML) under Circular CSSF 21/790 on the eDesk platform's CISERO module for specific 2026 year-ends, with key enhancements focused on valuation, NAV determination, and risk-based streamlining. It matters for Luxembourg UCIs as it reflects evolving supervisory priorities, aligns with EU directives like Directive (EU) 2024/927, and imposes refined self-assessment obligations to bolster resilience in stressed conditions and liquidity management.

What Changed

- SAQ Updates (Valuation Section): New questions on valuation policies for stressed market conditions/exceptional circumstances; coverage for new sub-funds/strategies; independent validation of...
SAQ Simplifications and Clarifications: Removed questions on sub-funds with significant non-standard OTC derivatives, unquoted assets, or external valuer OTC FDIs (including NAV proportions); refined...
SAQ NAV Determination: Updated Liquidity Management Tools (LMTs) sub-section to align with Annexes of AIFM/UCITS Review Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/927); added question on compliance with ESMA...
SR Streamlining: Removed procedures in investment compliance (e.g., eligibility assessments for closed-ended funds, structured instruments, non-plain vanilla OTC derivatives; credit quality for money...
Reports for year-ends after 30 April 2026 available three months prior.

Suggested Considerations

Access updated Reports on eDesk CISERO module immediately and review changes vs. 31 December 2025 versions.
Update valuation policies/procedures to explicitly cover stressed conditions, new sub-funds/strategies, model validations, and backtesting; document compliance.
Revise NAV processes for LMT alignment with Directive (EU) 2024/927 Annexes and ESMA performance fee guidelines; confirm for open-ended UCIs.
Dirigeants/management: Complete/validate SAQ addressing new/clarified questions; prepare for REA SR/ML review.
REAs: Perform streamlined SR procedures; issue ML on prior weaknesses with remediation timelines.

Key Dates

9 February 2026

Reports (SAQ, SR, ML) made available on eDesk CISERO for year-ends 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, 30 April 2026

16 April 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerBankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

February 9th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.674 February 9, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

February 9th 2026

PSD2 - PSP ICT Assessment – 2026 Campaign related to the financial year 2025

No description available.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Payment Provider

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

February 9th 2026

Foreign Currency Reserves 2026 – Market Notice 9 February 2026

Not for distribution, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan or any other jurisdiction where it is unlawful to distribute this announcement

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

February 9th 2026

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers publishes the findings of its inspections of asset management companies' operational risk management

Supervision Asset management Journalists Investment management companies The Autorité des Marchés Financiers publishes the findings of its inspections of asset management companies' operational risk management

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBank

🇬🇧 BoE Consultation medium

February 9th 2026

Green notice 2026/01

Green notices cover significant and/or significant proposals for Bank of England reporting. If any of these proposals are finalised and are to be implemented, they will appear in a statistical notice.

AI Analysis

Green Notice 2026/01 from the Bank of England (BoE) updates the consultation on discontinuing Form BN data collection, which tracks non-resident business by UK Monetary Financial Institutions (MFIs), following positive feedback on burden reduction but with a pause due to Office for National Statistics (ONS) reliance. Firms must continue reporting Form BN indefinitely pending BoE's assessment of alternatives like Forms CC and CL. This matters for compliance teams as it maintains current reporting obligations while signaling potential future relief, avoiding premature process changes.

What Changed

- No immediate discontinuation of Form BN; BoE is assessing Forms CC and CL as alternatives to meet ONS needs, considering data suitability, methodological impacts, and cost-benefit trade-offs.
Consultation feedback confirmed no objections to discontinuation and broad agreement on reduced burden, though some firms noted limited savings due to integrated reporting processes.
Any final changes will be via a future Statistical Notice; proposed end-date (April 2026 reference period) from Green Notice 2025/01 remains tentative.

Suggested Considerations

Continue submitting Form BN as per current thresholds and schedules; do not discontinue reporting.
Monitor BoE statistics notices for updates on assessment outcomes and any confirmed changes.
Review internal processes for Forms CC and CL to prepare for potential expanded use or adjustments if Form BN ends.
If previously provided feedback, no further action needed on consultation (closed).

Key Dates

31 December 2025 DEADLINE

- Consultation feedback deadline on original Form BN discontinuation proposal (now closed; summarized in this notice)

April 2026

- Proposed final reference period for Form BN data collection (tentative, pending assessment)

May 2026

- Proposed final publication date for Form BN data (tentative)

TBD

- Completion of BoE assessment on Forms CC/CL alternatives and issuance of further Statistical Notice with confirmed changes

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Firms face no new burdens or changes yet, but must sustain Form BN reporting to avoid non-compliance risks, as explicitly required. This matters because premature cessation could disrupt ONS statistics and invite regulatory scrutiny; however, low urgency stems from no fixed end-date and positive feedback on eventual burden reduction, allowing time for monitoring without immediate resource reallocation.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE Speech medium

February 8th 2026

The world today – remarks by Andrew Bailey

Given at the AlUla Conference for Emerging Market Economies 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇿🇦 FSCA News medium

February 7th 2026

Curatorships

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇿🇦 FSCA News low

February 7th 2026

Language Policy and Services

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

🇿🇦 FSCA Consultation medium

February 7th 2026

Documents for Consultation

AI Analysis

This FSCA publication lists multiple active and draft consultation documents primarily focused on capital markets regulations (e.g., JSE rules amendments) and collective investment schemes (CIS) standards, inviting stakeholder input on proposed changes to enhance market integrity, trading mechanisms, and governance. It matters for compliance professionals as it signals imminent updates to listing requirements, equities rules, and conduct standards that could reshape operational, disclosure, and access protocols in South Africa's financial markets, requiring proactive review to avoid enforcement risks. https://www.fsca.co.za/Document-For-Consultation [FSCA source].

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FSCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇿🇦 FSCA News low

February 7th 2026

PAIA and POPIA Requests

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇿🇦 FSCA News low

February 7th 2026

Subscriptions

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇿🇦 FSCA News

February 7th 2026

Related Websites

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇿🇦 FSCA News low

February 7th 2026

Comments Portal

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

February 6th 2026

Administrative sanction of 6 February 2026

Administrative sanction imposed on Corestate Capital Holding S.A.

AI Analysis

The CSSF published an administrative sanction on 6 February 2026 against Corestate Capital Holding S.A., likely for breaches in regulatory compliance such as depositary duties, oversight, or governance under Luxembourg financial laws, marking a repeat enforcement action following a prior sanction in June 2025. This matters for compliance professionals as it underscores CSSF's aggressive enforcement on alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) and depositaries, signaling heightened scrutiny on safekeeping, oversight, and internal controls to prevent systemic risks in Luxembourg's fund sector. It highlights the regulator's willingness to impose public nominative sanctions, amplifying reputational damage alongside fines.

What Changed

No new regulatory changes or requirements are introduced; this is an enforcement action enforcing existing obligations under laws like the AIFM Law of 12 July 2013 (e.g., Articles 19(8), 19(9), 19(11) on safekeeping and oversight duties), the Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 (CDR 231/2013, e.g., Articles 92, 94, 96 on risk assessment, valuation verification, and cash flow monitoring).

Suggested Considerations

Conduct immediate gap analysis: Review safekeeping processes for ownership verification (Article 19(8)(b) AIFM Law), ensuring transaction documentation, segregated account proofs, and full holding chain records are available at transaction points.
Enhance oversight duties: Implement risk assessments per Article 92(1) CDR 231/2013, valuation compliance checks (Article 94), and cash remittance monitoring (Article 96); appoint delegates with due diligence.
Strengthen governance: Update internal controls, procedures, and conflict-of-interest policies (e.g., director overlaps); ensure key documentation availability and evidence of controls.
Firm-wide audit: For repeat offenders like Corestate, perform root-cause analysis on prior sanctions and submit remediation plans to CSSF if inspected.
Training and reporting: Train staff on CSSF expectations; improve cooperation mechanisms to avoid AML/CFT fines for non-submission of requests.

Key Dates

20 June 2025 DEADLINE

- Prior administrative sanction imposed on Corestate Capital Holding S.A., indicating ongoing non-compliance issues

6 February 2026

- Publication date of the current administrative sanction on Corestate Capital Holding S.A., effective immediately as a public enforcement notice

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This represents CSSF's pattern of public nominative fines (e.g., EUR 102,000 on JTC for depositary breaches, EUR 10,000 on Capitalis for AML non-cooperation), with escalation risks for repeat violations like Corestate's back-to-back sanctions. It matters due to Luxembourg's dominance in European fund assets (over EUR 5 trillion), where governance lapses can trigger outflows, license revocation, or cross-border ESMA scrutiny; firms must act preemptively to mitigate fines (typically EUR 10,000–102,000) and reputational harm from nominative publication.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerAll Firms

Market Abuse / Surveillance Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

February 6th 2026

Administrative sanction of 6 February 2026

Administrative sanction imposed on Corestate Capital Holding S.A.

AI Analysis

The CSSF published an administrative sanction on 6 February 2026 against Corestate Capital Holding S.A., likely imposing a fine for regulatory breaches, marking a repeat enforcement action following a prior sanction on the same entity dated 20 June 2025. This matters as it underscores CSSF's intensified supervisory scrutiny on Luxembourg-based investment managers, particularly regarding governance, asset safekeeping, and oversight duties under AIFM Law, signaling heightened enforcement risks for similar firms. Compliance teams should review it for patterns in depositary and transparency violations evident in recent CSSF cases.

What Changed

No new regulatory changes or requirements are introduced; this is an enforcement action highlighting non-compliance with existing obligations under Luxembourg's AIFM Law (notably Articles 19(8), 19(9), 19(11), and 51) and related delegated regulations like CDR 231/2013. Key breaches from analogous recent CSSF sanctions include inadequate safekeeping of assets (e.g., missing ownership verification and records), failure to oversee AIFM valuation policies and cash remittance timelines, improper delegation to custodians without due diligence, and weak internal governance such as conflicts of...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct immediate gap analysis on depositary functions: Verify ownership chains, transaction documentation, segregated account reconciliations, and custodian delegations per AIFM Law Articles 19(8) and 19(11).
Enhance oversight processes: Implement risk assessments for AIF strategies, valuation policy checks, and cashflow monitoring per CDR 231/2013 Articles 92, 94, and 96.
Strengthen governance: Review internal controls, procedures, and conflicts (e.g., director overlaps with affiliates); ensure availability of control evidence.
For issuers like Corestate: Confirm compliance with half-yearly financial reporting and dissemination under Transparency Law Article 4.
Firm-wide: Perform mock CSSF on-site inspections focusing on 2022-2025 periods, given inspection timelines in recent cases.

Key Dates

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

🇺🇸 SEC News low

February 5th 2026

SEC Publishes Data on Exchange Traded Funds and Fund Mergers; Updated Statistics on Municipal Advisors, Transfer Agents, and Security-Based Swap Dealers

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) has published two new reports on exchange traded funds and fund mergers, and updated statistics and data visualizations on municipal advisors, transfer agents, and…

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇫🇷 AMF News high

February 5th 2026

The AMF reminds Digital Asset Service Providers that the transitional period allowing them to continue providing crypto-asset services in France without MiCA authorisation ends on 1 July 2026

MiCA Investment services The AMF reminds Digital Asset Service Providers that the transitional period allowing them to continue providing crypto-asset services in France without MiCA authorisation ends on 1 July 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

February 5th 2026

Bank Rate maintained at 3.75% - February 2026 Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is responsible for making decisions about Bank Rate.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

February 5th 2026

ASIC takes further steps to support Australians impacted by First Guardian and Shield collapse

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇯🇵 JFSA News

February 4th 2026

Others,Updated English version of Reference Cases on Suspicious Transactions

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsuranceAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation medium

February 4th 2026

DP1/26 – Future banking data

Discussion paper 1/26

AI Analysis

The PRA's DP1/26 outlines its Future Banking Data (FBD) programme, reviewing strategic regulatory reporting for banks to reduce costs, enhance data quality, timeliness, and relevance, while aligning with its secondary competitiveness and growth objective. This discussion paper seeks industry feedback on pragmatic, incremental reforms to reporting templates, processes, and principles, balancing supervisory needs with proportionality. It matters for compliance teams as it signals potential simplifications in data submissions, but requires proactive engagement to influence outcomes and prepare for evolving requirements.

What Changed

DP1/26 proposes no immediate binding changes, as it is a discussion paper seeking views rather than a consultation with firm rules. Key elements include:
Incremental reforms: Extending recent template deletions (e.g., from Strong and Simple initiative for liquidity returns in small banks) to wider collections, aiming for cost reductions estimated at...
Guiding principles: Four principles to shape FBD: (i) anchor data in PRA objectives; (ii) collect data 'once and well' (minimize volume, maximize use); (iii) ease firm supply processes; (iv) ensure...
Trade-offs: Balancing data standardization, comparability, international alignment, granularity vs. aggregation, and regular vs. ad-hoc requests.
Future roadmap: PRA will develop reforms based on responses, focusing on clearer instructions, coherent UK-wide processes, and addressing gaps for emerging risks. No finalized requirements yet;...

Suggested Considerations

Submit responses: By 5 May 2026 via email to DP1_26@bankofengland.co.uk or post to PRA address; indicate confidentiality preferences, noting no guaranteed protection under FOIA/data regimes.
Review and assess impact: Evaluate current reporting against proposed principles/trade-offs; identify cost-saving opportunities and gaps in data processes.
Engage proactively: Provide feedback on reforms (e.g., template reviews, standardization) to shape roadmap; benchmark data capabilities (e.g., vs. BCBS 239).
Prepare internally: Anticipate clearer instructions, potential UK-wide coherence (with FCA), and shifts in regular/ad-hoc balance; no immediate submissions changed.

Key Dates

5 May 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline for responses to DP1/26

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – Not critical, as no immediate rules or deadlines beyond response submission (3+ months away from 5 Feb 2026). Matters for strategic planning: signals cost reductions but requires input to avoid unfavorable changes; aligns with PRA's 2026 priorities on data accuracy/quality (e.g., for risk reporting, stress testing). Firms with high reporting burdens should prioritize to influence simplifications and mitigate risks from evolving data needs (e.g., emerging risks, AI).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

February 4th 2026

Results of the Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Turnover Survey for October 2025

In October 2025, 25 financial institutions active in the UK foreign exchange (FX) market participated in the semi-annual turnover survey for the Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC).

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankBroker DealerPayment Provider

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

February 4th 2026

Administrative sanction of 23 July 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on Genève Invest (Europe) S.A.

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed an administrative sanction on 23 July 2025 against Genève Invest (Europe) S.A., a Luxembourg-regulated entity, for breaches of professional obligations, as detailed in a publication released on 4 February 2026. This enforcement action underscores the CSSF's focus on robust internal controls and compliance with investment rules, serving as a warning to investment firms on the consequences of organizational and conduct failures. Compliance professionals should note it as evidence of heightened CSSF scrutiny on fund managers handling client assets and counterparties.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement action highlighting existing obligations under Luxembourg law. Key breaches likely mirror patterns in recent CSSF sanctions, such as non-compliance with UCI Law provisions on investment policies (e.g., Articles 41, 43), sound accounting procedures (Article 109), and rules of conduct (Articles 111, CSSF Regulation 10-04), including improper cash deposits with unauthorized brokers and inaccurate asset valuation.

Suggested Considerations

Immediate review of counterparty due diligence: Verify licenses and financial stability of brokers/prime brokers; cease deposits with unauthorized or suspended entities per UCI Law Article 41.
Enhance valuation and accounting controls: Ensure assets (e.g., cash deposits) are valued at probable realization value per Article 28(4) UCI Law and prospectus terms; implement automated monitoring for ongoing compliance.
Conduct internal audits: Assess organizational requirements, investment policies, and conduct rules (CSSF Regulation 10-04); remediate gaps proactively, as seen in mitigated sanctions for cooperative firms.
Update governance and reporting: Document risk assessments and report prior breaches to CSSF to demonstrate cooperation, potentially reducing fine severity.

Key Dates

23 July 2025

- Date of administrative sanction imposition on Genève Invest (Europe) S.A

4 February 2026

- Publication date of the sanction document by CSSF

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This sanction, published today (4 February 2026), signals ongoing CSSF off-site and on-site probes into fund operations, similar to fines imposed in July 2025 on Zeus Asset Management (€18,136 for UCI breaches) and a bank (reprimand for AML gaps). It matters due to escalating enforcement—fines calibrated to turnover (e.g., 10% in Zeus case)—and risks of reputational damage, especially for wealth managers with broker exposures. Non-compliance could trigger investigations, as CSSF considers infringement duration, cooperation, and history.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerAll Firms

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

February 4th 2026

Petra Capital fined for regulatory data reporting failures

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

February 4th 2026

Registration form for meetings with UCI Departments of the CSSF (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

February 4th 2026

FAQ Crypto-Assets – Undertakings for collective investment (Updated)

Version 7 – 04/02/2026

AI Analysis

The CSSF has released Version 7 of its FAQ on Crypto-Assets for Undertakings for Collective Investment, updated on February 4, 2026, to reflect the entry into force of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR). This guidance establishes binding investment limits, authorization requirements, and risk management standards for UCITS and AIFs investing in crypto-assets, fundamentally reshaping how Luxembourg-regulated collective investment schemes can engage with digital assets.

What Changed

The most significant regulatory modifications in Version 7 include: Investment Limits for UCITS UCITS may invest indirectly in crypto-assets for a maximum of 10% of their net asset value (NAV). These indirect investments are limited to transferable securities that do not embed derivatives in accordance with Article 10 of the Grand-ducal Regulation of 8. Investment Limits for AIFs AIFs open to retail investors other than well-informed investors may invest in crypto-assets for a maximum of 10% of their NAV.

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Compliance Steps:
*Portfolio Audit: Conduct a comprehensive review of all UCITS and AIF holdings to identify current and potential crypto-asset exposures, both direct and indirect (including derivatives with crypto underlyings).
*Investment Policy Updates: Revise fund documentation, prospectuses, and investment policies to reflect the 10% NAV limits and MiCAR compliance requirements.
*Risk Management Assessment: Update risk management policies to address crypto-asset volatility, liquidity, and technological risks, with case-by-case impact assessments on fund risk profiles.
*Investor Notification: Ensure transparent and timely communication with investors regarding any crypto-asset investments or policy changes.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €50,000 disciplinary fine on Gateway Real Estate AG on 12 December 2025 for failing to submit its 2024 consolidated accounting documents electronically to the Bundesanzeiger operator, breaching section 325 HGB. This enforcement action underscores BaFin/BfJ's strict oversight of financial reporting obligations under the German Commercial Code (HGB), signaling heightened scrutiny on timely and proper disclosure for listed real estate firms. Compliance teams must prioritize automated electronic submission processes to avoid similar sanctions, as this case highlights procedural lapses as sanctionable offenses.

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is an enforcement action applying existing rules under sections 325 and 335 HGB. Section 325 HGB mandates electronic submission of consolidated accounting documents (e.g., annual financial statements, management reports) for public disclosure via the Bundesanzeiger. Section 335 HGB provides the legal basis for disciplinary fines up to €50,000 for non-compliance, emphasizing electronic format as mandatory since the HGB's digital disclosure amendments (effective post-2013 e-Bilanz reform).

Suggested Considerations

Implement automated electronic submission workflows for HGB disclosures using Bundesanzeiger's XBRL/iXBRL formats to ensure compliance with section 325 HGB.
Conduct annual process audits pre-deadline (e.g., 31 July for calendar-year AGs) to verify submission tracking, confirmations, and fallback manual checks.
Train finance/compliance staff on HGB electronic disclosure rules, including penalties under section 335; integrate into closing checklists.
Monitor appeals/outcomes via BaFin/BfJ updates; for real estate firms, cross-check with prior BaFin probes (e.g., Gateway's 2023 valuation issues).
Enhance governance with senior manager attestation for disclosure submissions to mitigate organizational breach risks.

Key Dates

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankFintechAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

February 2nd 2026

Outcomes of the 2025 SFTR Data Quality indicators review

The CSSF informs the market regarding the outcomes of the SFTR Data Quality indicators review performed in 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankBroker DealerPayment Provider

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

February 2nd 2026

Processing time of initial authorisations of regulated investment vehicles

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

January 30th 2026

SEC Appoints New Chairman and Board Members to PCAOB

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the appointment of Demetrios (Jim) Logothetis, as Chairman, and Mark Calabria, Kyle Hauptman, and Steven Laughton, as Board members, of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). George…

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions Banking & Credit

🇯🇵 JFSA News low

January 30th 2026

Others,Stewardship Code: List of institutional investors accepted the Principles for Responsible Institutional Investors as of December 31, 2025

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerInsuranceBank

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

January 30th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Russland

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat Änderungen der Verordnung vom 4. März 2022 über Massnahmen im Zusammenhang mit der Situation in der Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) publiziert.

AI Analysis

On January 29, 2026, Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) reduced the price cap on Russian crude oil from USD 47.6 to USD 44.1 per barrel, effective February 1, 2026. This adjustment tightens existing sanctions enforcement and requires Swiss financial intermediaries to immediately implement updated compliance controls and reporting obligations under the Ukraine Sanctions Ordinance (SR 946.231.176.72).

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

January 30th 2026

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/259 of 29 January 2026

implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 30th 2026

Administrative sanction of 1 December 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on a registered alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed an administrative fine of EUR 10,000 on registered alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) C5 S.à r.l. on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit its annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline, despite reminders, breaching the cooperation obligation under Article 5(1) of Luxembourg's AML/CFT Law of 12 November 2004. This enforcement action underscores the CSSF's strict enforcement of AML reporting duties and serves as a warning to supervised entities on the consequences of non-compliance with supervisory requests. It matters because it demonstrates the CSSF's willingness to publish names and impose fines for procedural lapses, potentially signaling increased scrutiny on AIFMs' AML/CFT obligations amid broader regulatory focus on financial crime risks.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement precedent highlighting existing obligations under the AML/CFT Law:
Mandatory annual submission of the CSSF financial crime questionnaire by supervised entities, including registered AIFMs, as part of the cooperation duty in Article 5(1).
Fines determined per Article 8-4(1), (2)(f), and (3)(a), considering circumstances under Article 8-5(1), with publication assessed for proportionality under Article 8-6(1). No new rules introduced;...

Suggested Considerations

Immediate verification: Confirm timely submission of 2025 financial crime questionnaire (likely due April 2026 for 2025 data); review internal processes for CSSF reminders and automate alerts.
Procedural enhancements: Implement robust tracking systems for supervisory questionnaires, designate a responsible senior manager for AML cooperation, and document all responses or justifications for delays.
Training and testing: Conduct firm-wide training on AML/CFT Law Article 5(1) obligations; perform mock audits of reporting workflows, especially for registered AIFMs managing non-CSSF authorized funds.
Engagement protocol: Respond promptly to CSSF reminders; request in-person meetings if needed before fines escalate; review cooperation history to mitigate fine severity.
Policy updates: Align with CSSF Circular 25/894 for expanded AIFM reporting on unauthorized funds (notification within 10 working days for registered AIFMs).

Key Dates

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 29th 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

January 29th 2026

MAS Monetary Policy Statement - January 2026

Read the Monetary Policy Statement for January 2026.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇮🇪 CBI News low

January 28th 2026

Central Bank of Ireland completes sale of Spencer Dock (East Wing) building to the Office of Public Works

Central Bank of Ireland has successfully completed the sale of its Spencer Dock (East Wing) building to the Office of Public Works for €23.7m. The sale of Spencer Dock was a key element of the Central Bank’s longer term property strategy aligned to our decision to develop a single Dockland Campus through the purchase of our North Wall Quay building and subsequent purchase of our Mayor Street building. This sale of the East Wing, to Office of Public Works on 22 January 2026, follows the earlie...

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

January 28th 2026

Looking back on the 2026 CSSF AML/CFT Conference for Specialised PFS

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit Investment Management

🇬🇧 FCA policy_statement high

January 28th 2026

Next steps for establishing a bond consolidated tape provider

We have signed a contract with Etrading Software (ETS) to deliver the UK bond consolidated tape. A high-quality tape will provide investors with a comprehensive overview of the bond market and support price formation and liquidity. It will help maintain the UK’s position as a highly competitive and compelling place to invest and grow.ETS has now launched a website that sets out key milestones and provides technical information for data contributors and users. We will continue to support ETS a...

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Market Abuse / Surveillance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇬 MAS News medium

January 28th 2026

Singapore to Join International Efforts to Support IMF’s Initiatives for Vulnerable Countries

MAS announced that Singapore intends to join international efforts to enhance the capacity of the International Monetary Fund to help vulnerable member countries deal with economic shocks.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements ESG Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News high

January 27th 2026

SEC Charges ADM and Three Former Executives with Accounting and Disclosure Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed settled charges against Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) and its former executives, Vince Macciocchi and Ray Young, and a litigated action against its former executive Vikram Luthar, for …

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 CFTC News medium

January 27th 2026

CFTC Staff Issues No-Action Letter, Announces Implementation Updates to 2024 Large Trader Reporting Rule

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

January 27th 2026

Councils,Joint session of the 56th general meeting of Financial System Council and the 44th meeting of Sectional Committee on Financial System

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

January 26th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.672 January 26, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Equity-Indexed Annuities

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Engagement

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice critical

January 24th 2026

Enforcement Process

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice critical

January 24th 2026

Enforcement

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Electronic Fingerprint Processing

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Electronic Communications

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Direct Participation Programs (DPPs)

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Digital Experience Transformation (DXT)

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Derivatives and Other Balance Sheet Items (OBS)

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Derivatives

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Department of Labor

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Deferred Annuities

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Day Trading

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Customer Orders

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Customer Information Protection

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Customer Account Transfers

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Customer Account Statements

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Crypto & Digital Assets Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Crypto Assets

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Crypto ExchangeBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Credit for Cooperation

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Correspondence

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Corporate Financing

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Corporate Bonds

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Continuing Education

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Consolidated Reports

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT)

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System (CARDS)

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Compensation

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Communications with the Public

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Certificates of Deposit (CDs)

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerBankWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Central Registration Depository (CRD)

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Cash Equivalents

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Carrying Agreements

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Capital Formation

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Business Continuity Planning

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

BrokerCheck

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Broker-Dealer Recruitment Disclosures

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Breakpoints

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Branch Offices

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Books and Records

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Bond Mutual Fund Volatility/Risk Rating

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Blue Sheets

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Block Chain / Distributed Ledger Technology

Sectors:

Topics:

Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerFintechCrypto Exchange

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Best Practices

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Best Execution

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Auction Rate Securities

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Asset Backed Securities

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Consumer Protection / Conduct

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Artificial Intelligence

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Arbitration and Mediation

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Anti-Money Laundering

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Annual Audit

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Alternative Display Facility (ADF)

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Algorithmic Trading

Sectors:

Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerFintech

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Agency Bonds

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Advertising Regulation

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

529 Savings Plans

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-01

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance high

January 24th 2026

Information Notice - 1/3/25

AI Analysis

FINRA issued an Information Notice on January 3, 2025, modifying the Contrary Exercise Advice (CEA) cut-off time for options expiring on January 9, 2025, from the standard 5:30 p.m. ET to 10:00 a.m. ET due to the National Day of Mourning. This time-sensitive directive required immediate operational adjustments for all broker-dealers and clearing members handling options exercise instructions on that specific date.

What Changed

The primary regulatory modification addresses a single-day exception to standard options exercise procedures:
CEA Cut-Off Time Acceleration: The normal 5:30 p.m. ET deadline for submitting Contrary Exercise Advice was compressed to 10:00 a.m. ET on January 9, 2025.
Exercise Instruction Acceptance Window: Members could not accept exercise instructions for either customer or non-customer accounts after 10:00 a.m. ET on that date.
OCC Processing Unchanged: The Options Clearing Corporation's processing timeframes remained unaffected by the market closure.
Restricted Exercise Classes: Exercises in non-expiring American-style, cash-settled index options and non-expiring American-style, cash-settled FLEX ETF option classes were prohibited on January 9,...

Suggested Considerations

*Update Internal Procedures: Modify systems and workflows to enforce the 10:00 a.m. ET cut-off instead of the standard 5:30 p.m. ET deadline for January 9, 2025 options
*System Configuration: Reprogram trading platforms, order management systems, and compliance monitoring tools to reject exercise instructions received after 10:00 a.m. ET on that date
*Staff Communication: Notify all relevant personnel (trading desk, operations, compliance, customer service) of the accelerated deadline and restricted exercise classes
*Customer Notification: Inform retail and institutional clients of the early cut-off time for options expiring on January 9, 2025
*Submission Coordination: Ensure CEA submissions to exchanges and OCC occur within the compressed timeframe

Key Dates

January 9, 2025 DEADLINE

10:00 a.m. ET; Final deadline for option holders to make exercise/non-exercise decisions and for members to accept exercise instructions (accelerated from standard 5:30 p.m. ET)

January 9, 2025 DEADLINE

10:00 a.m. ET; Final deadline for members to submit Contrary Exercise Advice to exchanges or OCC (accelerated from standard 5:30 p.m. ET or 7:30 p.m. ET depending on account type and submission method)

January 9, 2025

National Day of Mourning; national options exchanges closed; exercises in specified option classes prohibited

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH (for January 9, 2025 operations; now historical)

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-02

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-03

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-05

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-06

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance low

January 24th 2026

Information Notice - 4/24/25

AI Analysis

This FINRA Information Notice announces the SEC's reduction of the Section 31 fee rate to $0.00 per million dollars in specified securities transactions, effective May 14, 2025, following the SEC's Fee Rate Advisory for Fiscal Year 2025. It matters because it eliminates these transaction fees for FINRA member firms for the remainder of FY 2025 (and potentially beyond until FY 2026 appropriations), reducing costs and simplifying billing processes amid the SEC's over-collection of its appropriation target.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]

What Changed

- The Section 31 fee rate drops from $27.80 per million dollars to $0.00 per million dollars for covered securities transactions on exchanges and over-the-counter markets, applicable to trade dates...
The assessment on security futures transactions remains unchanged at $0.0042 per round turn transaction.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]
FINRA will assess fees on member firms per Section 3 of Schedule A to the By-Laws, aligned with SEC adjustments made in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and...

Suggested Considerations

Update internal billing, invoicing, and financial reporting systems to reflect the $0.00 rate starting May 14, 2025, using trade date as the charge date per 17 CFR 240.31(a)(3).[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]
Review and adjust any automated fee calculations or client pass-through mechanisms for transactions on or after the effective date.
Contact FINRA's Amanda Rath for finance questions ((240) 386-6637) or SEC's Robert McNamee/Faisal Sheikh for legal/interpretive issues; monitor SEC website for updates.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]
Test systems for security futures (unchanged rate) and confirm no inadvertent charging of Section 31 fees post-effective date.

Key Dates

April 8, 2025

- SEC announces Fee Rate Advisory for Fiscal Year 2025

April 24, 2025

- FINRA publishes Information Notice.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]

May 13, 2025

- Last day for current rate of $27.80 per million (trade dates through this date).[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]

May 14, 2025

- New rate of $0.00 per million takes effect for trade dates (charge dates) on or after this date; applies to OTC sales and options settlements/exercises.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]

Ongoing until 60 days after FY 2026 appropriation enactment

- $0.00 rate remains in effect

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Low - This is a beneficial change eliminating fees due to SEC over-collection, with no new requirements or penalties; firms already past the May 14, 2025, effective date (as of January 2026) face minimal risk if systems were updated timely. It matters for cost savings, accurate financials, and avoiding erroneous collections, but non-compliance (e.g., continued billing) could lead to refunds or disputes rather than enforcement.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20250424]

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

January 24th 2026

Special Notice – 5/15/25

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

Information Notice - 6/26/25

AI Analysis

This FINRA Information Notice announces the termination of **Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-1** effective July 1, 2025, with **Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2** taking effect for transactions in eligible securities by FINRA member CAT executing brokers. It matters because firms must transition billing and payment processes seamlessly to avoid disruptions in CAT cost recovery compliance under FINRA Rule 6897(b)(1)(D).

What Changed

- Termination of Fee 2025-1: No longer applied to transactions after June 30, 2025, per FINRA Rule 6897(b)(1)(D), which requires notice upon replacement by a subsequent fee.
Implementation of Fee 2025-2: New fee recovers FINRA's ~$7.27 million share of budgeted CAT costs for July 1–December 31, 2025; monthly invoicing begins for July 2025 transactions.
Distinction from CAT LLC fees: Unrelated to "CAT Fee 2025-1" (assessed by CAT LLC, rate $0.000022 per transaction, remains in effect).

Suggested Considerations

Verify internal systems stop applying Fee 2025-1 post-June 30, 2025, and prepare for Fee 2025-2 invoicing starting July transactions.
Review and pay final Fee 2025-1 invoice (due August 2025) per Rule 6897(b)(2).
Update budgeting/forecasting models for Fee 2025-2 (covers H2 2025 CAT costs); monitor FINRA notices for rate details via SR-FINRA-2025-010.
Contact Amanda Rath ((240) 386-6637) or Faisal Sheikh ((202) 728-8379) for questions.
Distinguish FINRA fees from CAT LLC fees to avoid double-counting in financial controls.

Key Dates

June 30, 2025

- Last day Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-1 applies to transactions

July 1, 2025

- Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 takes effect for transactions

July 2025

- Last invoice sent for Fee 2025-1 (based on June 2025 transactions)

August 2025 DEADLINE

- Payments due for Fee 2025-1 final invoice; first invoices for Fee 2025-2 issued (based on July transactions)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Primarily administrative; no new reporting burdens, but failure to transition could lead to underpayment, late fees, or Rule 6897 violations. Matters for high-volume brokers due to monthly cash flow impacts and ongoing CAT funding obligations (totaling FINRA's 2025 budgeted costs). As of January 2026, firms should have adapted, but audits may flag non-compliance.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-09

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Election Notice – 9/4/25

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-10

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerBankFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-11

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerBankAsset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-12

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-13

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Election Notice – 10/20/25

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking Investment Management

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

Information Notice - 10/21/25

AI Analysis

FINRA's Information Notice dated October 21, 2025, reminds member firms of NSCC's amendment to Rule 50, effective October 17, 2025, which removes the "Settle Prep Day" from the ACATS process, shortening full customer account transfers to 3-4 business days. This matters because it aligns with FINRA Rule 11870's requirements to expedite transfers, enhances operational efficiency, reduces risk, and improves client experience amid broader industry shifts like T+1 settlement.[original notice]

What Changed

- Removal of Settle Prep Day: NSCC Rule 50 amended to eliminate the settlement preparation stage from ACATS, effective October 17, 2025, streamlining the process for all securities...
Mutual Fund/Options Synchronization: Eliminates the extra day for processing mutual funds and options via Fund/SERV, aligning their settlement with other assets; also removes the second day of...
Overall Timeline Reduction: Full ACATS transfers now complete in 3-4 business days (previously longer), supporting faster asset access without manual processes.
FINRA Rule 11870 remains unchanged but continues to mandate use of ACATS (when both firms participate), prompt validation/exceptions, and coordination to expedite transfers.[original notice]

Suggested Considerations

Operational Readiness: Coordinate between transfer and settlement operations to handle shortened cycles and next-day settling; validate/except instructions within 3 business days per FINRA Rule 11870(b).[original notice]
Exception Handling: Promptly resolve any transfer instruction exceptions (Rule 11870(b)(2)); ensure ACATS data meets minimum requirements to avoid rejections.
System Updates: Migrate to new ACATS interfaces/formats ahead of October 2026 decommission; test for mutual funds, options, and complex assets.
Contact FINRA/NSCC: Direct questions to Kathryn Mahoney (FINRA) at (646) 315-8428 or email; reference NSCC Important Notice A9646 for details.[original notice]
Monitoring: Firms should already be compliant as enhancement launched October 17, 2025; address any post-implementation issues via DTCC support.

Key Dates

September 5, 2025

- SEC approves NSCC's proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2025-011) amending Rule 50.[original notice]

September 10, 2025

- Federal Register publication of SEC approval (90 FR 43709).[original notice]

October 17, 2025 DEADLINE

- Effective date: Removal of Settle Prep Day and Fund/SERV changes; firms must support next-day settling assets.[original notice]

October 2026

- Planned modernization of ACATS client interfaces (decommission of legacy formats; migration to JSON/MQ for enhanced messaging)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Effective over three months ago (as of January 2026), with industry-wide accommodation confirmed; no new mandates but requires ongoing operational alignment to avoid Rule 11870 violations (e.g., delays in validation or exceptions). Matters for reducing transfer failures, enhancing efficiency post-T+1, and minimizing client complaints on account mobility; non-compliance risks FINRA scrutiny on customer protection.[original notice]

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerWealth ManagerAll Firms

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-14

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

Information Notice - 11/7/25

AI Analysis

FINRA's Information Notice 11/7/25 publishes a **2026 Filing Schedule** on its website to guide clearing firms on accurate submission dates for extensions of time under Federal Reserve Regulation T, SEA Rule 15c3-3, and FINRA Rule 4210, accounting for holidays and business days. This matters because the automated REX system rejects incorrect dates, forcing resubmissions that delay compliance and risk regulatory violations amid shortened settlement cycles.

What Changed

No new regulatory requirements or rule amendments; this is guidance providing a pre-calculated Filing Schedule for 2026 to prevent errors in the REX system. It emphasizes using schedule dates around holidays when exchanges or banks close, and confirms fixed SEA Rule 15c3-3 deadlines (e.g., 30th/45th calendar days post-settlement, 10th business day for (m) possession/control, regardless of foreign settlement cycles).

Suggested Considerations

Access and reference the 2026 Filing Schedule on FINRA's website (via https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251107 or related pages) for all REX system submissions.
Input schedule-specific dates for extensions, particularly around 2026 holidays when exchanges/banks close, to avoid automatic denials.
File SEA Rule 15c3-3 extensions on exact due dates listed above, even for foreign-traded securities.
Contact Theresa Reynolds (646-315-8567 or email) for questions.
Update internal compliance calendars, training, and systems to integrate the schedule.

Key Dates

November 7, 2025

- Notice published; 2026 Filing Schedule made available on FINRA website

Throughout 2026

- Use Filing Schedule for all extension requests, especially pre/post-holidays (e.g., Veterans Day 11/11/2026 bank holiday, Thanksgiving 11/26/2026, Christmas 12/25/2026)

30th calendar day after settlement

- (d)(2)

45th calendar day after settlement

- (d)(3), (h)

2nd business day after 30th calendar day from segregation deficit

- (d)(4)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Proactive guidance prevents operational disruptions from REX rejections, but no immediate deadlines or penalties for non-use; however, inaccurate filings risk delayed margin compliance, customer liquidations under Regulation T, or possession/control failures under SEA Rule 15c3-3, especially in holiday periods with T+1 settlement pressures. Firms should integrate now (as of January 2026) to ensure Q1 readiness.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Broker Dealer

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance high

January 24th 2026

Information Notice 11/10/25

AI Analysis

FINRA Information Notice 11/10/25 provides due dates for 2026 and Q1 2027 filings of Annual Reports, FOCUS Reports, Form Custody, and various supplemental schedules under SEA Rule 17a-5 and FINRA Rule 4524. It matters because it ensures timely electronic submissions via FINRA Gateway, incorporates SEC amendments for EDGAR PDF filings (with future Interactive Data requirements), and highlights a 30-day extension option for qualifying smaller firms, helping prevent compliance failures amid federal holidays. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251110

What Changed

- Electronic Filing Mandates: All specified filings must be submitted electronically via FINRA Gateway; SEC no longer accepts paper Annual Reports, requiring EDGAR PDF submissions under amended SEA...
SEC Interactive Data Compliance Dates: Annual reports and supplements must be filed as Interactive Data Files per Rule 405 of Regulation S-T; firms with net capital ≥$250,000 (as of Dec 31, 2025)...
30-Day Extension for Annual Reports: Available under SEC February 2021 order for qualifying SIPC members (e.g., smaller firms facing audit burdens), requiring FINRA notification per Regulatory Notice...
SIPC Filing via FINRA: SIPC members' Annual Report filings through FINRA Gateway satisfy SIPC requirements via agreement. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251110

Suggested Considerations

Submit all filings electronically via FINRA Gateway by 11:59 p.m. ET on due dates; obtain EDGAR access for Annual Reports.
For 30-day extension: Confirm eligibility per SEC order, notify FINRA as in Regulatory Notice 21-05 before standard due date. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251110
Affirm de minimis exemptions in eFOCUS for OBS/SIS/SLS where applicable.
Prepare for Interactive Data: Larger firms by mid-2027 (test EDGAR Interactive Data Files).
Contact firm's Risk Monitoring Analyst for questions; review eFOCUS guidance and SIPC site. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251110 https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Information-Notice-20251110.pdf

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Multiple imminent deadlines (e.g., January 27-29, 2026 for Q4 2025 filings, just days from today), mandatory electronic/EDGAR shifts, and late fees/exam risks for misses; smaller firms gain extension relief but must notify promptly. Non-compliance risks enforcement under SEA Rule 17a-5, operational disruptions, and audit delays. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251110

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-15

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA Guidance high

January 24th 2026

Information Notice 11/14/25

AI Analysis

FINRA Information Notice 11/14/25 summarizes SEC amendments to SEA Rule 17a-5 mandating electronic filing of broker-dealer annual reports, supplemental reports, and Form 17-H on EDGAR in PDF format, alongside FOCUS Report updates including electronic signatures and elimination of notarization. These changes modernize submissions, eliminate paper filings to the SEC, and impose new interactive data requirements with phased compliance, requiring broker-dealers to secure EDGAR access and adapt processes promptly to avoid disruptions.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]

What Changed

- Electronic Filing Mandate: SEC no longer accepts paper submissions of annual reports (Form X-17A-5 Part III), supplemental reports under SEA Rule 17a-5(k), and Form 17-H; all must be filed on EDGAR...
Electronic Signatures Permitted: Allowed for all SEA Rule 17a-5 reports (including annual and FOCUS Reports) via specified processes, e.g., Adobe Acrobat digitally signed certificates with document...
Oath or Affirmation Updates: Notarization eliminated; signed version must be retained for at least 6 years (first 2 in easily accessible place) per SEA Rule...
Interactive Data Files: Annual/supplemental reports and Form 17-H must be submitted as Interactive Data Files under Regulation S-T Rule 405, with phased compliance based on net capital.
FINRA Submissions Unchanged: Annual reports to FINRA remain electronic via existing systems; FOCUS changes detailed on FINRA's eFOCUS...

Suggested Considerations

Obtain EDGAR access credentials via Form ID if not previously filed (submit early via SEC's "Apply for EDGAR Access" instructions); contact EDGAR Filer Technical Support at (202) 551-8900 Option #3 for help.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]
Transition annual/supplemental reports and Form 17-H to EDGAR PDF submissions effective fiscal years ending on/after June 30, 2025; follow SEC's Electronic Filing of Form X-17A-5 Part III instructions.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]
Implement electronic signature processes (e.g., Adobe digital certificates) for SEA Rule 17a-5 reports; limit FOCUS signatures to one principal officer.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]
Retain signed Oath or Affirmation for 6 years per SEA Rule 17a-4 (no notarization).[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]
Review FINRA eFOCUS page for FOCUS amendments; prepare for interactive data filings per net capital tier (test systems in advance).

Key Dates

June 30, 2025

Electronic PDF filing on EDGAR mandatory for annual reports (fiscal years ending on/after this date), supplemental reports (SEA Rule 17a-5(k)), and Form 17-H; no paper accepted.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]

December 31, 2025 DEADLINE

Reference date for determining firm net capital threshold ($250,000+) for interactive data compliance phasing

June 30, 2027 DEADLINE

Interactive Data File requirement applies to filings due on/after for firms with ≥ $250,000 minimum net capital (as of 12/31/2025)

June 30, 2029 DEADLINE

Interactive Data File requirement applies to filings due on/after for firms with < $250,000 minimum net capital (as of 12/31/2025)

As early as possible pre DEADLINE

due date; Submit Form ID for EDGAR access (5-7 business day approval delay).[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Immediate action needed for EDGAR access and PDF filings (past June 30, 2025 deadline as of January 2026), risking filing rejections or enforcement if unprepared; interactive data adds future burden but allows planning. Matters due to SEC's zero-tolerance for paper, potential delays in EDGAR approvals, and operational shifts in signing/retention, amplifying risks for non-compliant firms amid FINRA/SEC modernization push.[https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-20251114]

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-16

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-17

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-18

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerWealth ManagerBank

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 25-19

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

January 24th 2026

Regulatory Notice 26-01

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice high

January 24th 2026

Trade Reporting Notice 1/14/26

FINRA publishes Notices to provide firms with timely information on a variety of issues. To obtain a Notice published prior to 1995, please contact FINRA MediaSource at (240) 386-4200.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber Authorisation & Licensing

Broker DealerFintechAll Firms

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

GC25/1: Primary Market Bulletin No. 55

Guidance consultations

AI Analysis

GC25/1 within Primary Market Bulletin No. 55 consults on targeted amendments to FCA Knowledge Base technical notes to align with UK Listing Rules (UKLR) changes effective 29 July 2024 and a new ESEF taxonomy for digital reporting. This matters for listed issuers and advisors as it updates formal guidance on periodic reporting, inside information handling, and position disclosures, ensuring compliance with post-reform listing regime requirements.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Payments & E-Money Consumer Credit

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance high

January 24th 2026

PS25/19: Improving the complaints reporting process

Consultation papers

AI Analysis

FCA PS25/19 finalizes rules to streamline complaints reporting by replacing multiple existing returns with a single consolidated return, enhancing data quality, consistency, and vulnerability identification while reducing burdens. This matters for compliance teams as it mandates system and process updates to improve regulatory oversight and consumer protection, with implementation required within 12 months.

What Changed

- Consolidated complaints return: Replaces five existing returns (DISP 1 Annex 1, Consumer Credit Return (CCR), Funeral Plans (FP), Claims Management Companies (CMCs), and Electronic Money and...
Permission-based reporting: Firms report only sections relevant to their regulated permissions, targeting reporting to specific activities.
Simplified nil returns: Proportionate approach allows upfront selection for firms with no complaints.
Removal of group reporting: Shifts to individual legal entity-level reporting for greater transparency and oversight.
Updated complaints taxonomy: Revised categories reflect modern products/services, reducing use of 'Other' and improving categorization.

Suggested Considerations

Review and update internal complaints recording, categorization, and reporting systems to align with new consolidated return, taxonomy, permission-based sections, and vulnerability data points.
Eliminate group-level aggregation; implement entity-level reporting.
Integrate FCA Vulnerability Guidance into complaints processes for identification and reporting.
Test and prepare for fixed 6-monthly submissions via FCA systems; complete nil return simplifications where applicable.
For Retail Banking, Insurance, Payment Services, and CMCs: Retain and adapt contextualised data capture.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – With publication on 3 Dec 2025 and a 12-month implementation window (to ~Dec 2026), firms must prioritize system changes now, as the first period starts 1 Jan 2027; non-compliance risks enforcement, especially on vulnerability reporting and transparency, amid FCA's focus on consumer protection data quality.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsurancePayment Provider

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

GC25/2: Primary Market Bulletin No. 57

Guidance consultations

AI Analysis

The FCA's GC25/2: Primary Market Bulletin No. 57 (PMB 57), published 25 July 2025, consults on amendments to Technical Note 710.1 ('Sponsor Services: Principles for Sponsors') and a new Technical Note 638.1 on complex financial history and significant financial commitment rules for prospectuses. This matters as it updates the Knowledge Base to align with the new UK Listing Regime (UKLR) and Prospectus Rules, providing clarity for sponsors and issuers ahead of the PRM sourcebook effective January 2026, reducing compliance risks in primary markets.

What Changed

- Amendments to TN 710.1 (Sponsor Services: Principles for Sponsors): Revisions clarify the scope of 'preparatory work' and sponsor obligations under UKLR 4, building on feedback from PMB 48, 53, and...
New TN 638.1 (Guidance on complex financial history and significant financial commitment rules): Updated draft provides detailed guidance for prospectus applications by companies with complex...
Other updates: Finalises five technical notes from PMB 55 (e.g., TN 506.3 on periodic financial information, TN 521.4 on inside information); National Storage Mechanism changes effective 3 November...

Suggested Considerations

Review and respond: Analyse draft TN 710.1 and TN 638.1; submit feedback by 12/09/2025, focusing on sponsor obligations, complex history scenarios, and examples (e.g., AFME suggested clarifying 'significant acquisition' thresholds).
Update policies/processes: Sponsors to align with clarified UKLR 4 principles; issuers to incorporate TN 638.1 guidance into prospectus preparation, especially for acquisitive businesses.
Monitor finalisation: Track FG25/5 or subsequent PMBs for final notes; interpret existing Listing Rules in light of UKLR until all updates complete.
Implement NSM changes: By 03/11/2025 for relevant disclosures.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – Consultation closed 12/09/2025 (past deadline as of January 2026), but final notes (e.g., TN 710 by end-2025) and PRM effective 19/01/2026 require immediate policy reviews to avoid prospectus rejections or sponsor breaches. Matters for primary market competitiveness and investor protection under evolving UKLR/PRM, with no material CBA changes from CP23/31/CP24/12.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

Statement of Policy on statutory investigations into regulatory failure and producing reports [PDF]

Policy and guidance

AI Analysis

The FCA's updated Statement of Policy outlines its approach to statutory investigations into possible regulatory failures under Part 5 of the Financial Services Act 2012, including criteria for triggering investigations and producing reports for HM Treasury. It matters because it clarifies when the FCA must self-scrutinize serious lapses in regulation, helping firms anticipate rare but high-profile probes into systemic issues affecting consumer protection, market integrity, or competition. The primary update adjusts inflation-linked monetary thresholds for assessing "significant" consumer detriment, ensuring the policy remains relevant.

What Changed

- Inflation-adjusted monetary thresholds for consumer detriment: Detriment exceeding £210 million is more likely deemed "significant," while below £45 million is unlikely to meet the threshold unless...
No other substantive changes from the 2013 policy; refinements emphasize internal "lessons learned" reviews for non-statutory cases to avoid resource duplication in formal probes.
Clarified two-part statutory test: (1) Events indicating significant failure in consumer protection or adverse effects on integrity/competition objectives; (2) Events might not have occurred (or...

Suggested Considerations

Monitor for triggering events: Firms should self-assess operations against the two-part test, particularly potential consumer detriment exceeding £45m/£210m thresholds or impacts on FCA objectives.
Enhance internal reviews: Conduct "lessons learned" exercises post-incident to align with FCA's non-statutory approach, reducing escalation risk to formal probes.
No direct firm obligations: This is FCA policy on self-investigation; firms face no new reporting or compliance mandates but should prepare for FCA enquiries if events suggest regulatory system failures.
Document qualitative factors (e.g., vulnerability) in risk assessments to contextualize detriment.

Key Dates

14 November 2025

- Publication date of updated Statement of Policy

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This update signals FCA's commitment to accountability without imposing new firm-level rules, but it heightens focus on significant failures (£45m+ detriment), potentially leading to public reports exposing industry-wide gaps. Firms with high consumer exposure (e.g., retail-facing) should prioritize as probes, though rare, amplify reputational and remedial risks via Treasury publication.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBankInsurance

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance high

January 24th 2026

CP25/31: The framework for a UK equity consolidated tape

Consultation papers

AI Analysis

The FCA's CP25/31 proposes a regulatory framework for introducing a UK equity Consolidated Tape (CT), operated by a Consolidated Tape Provider (CTP), to collate and distribute comprehensive post-trade data (prices and volumes) across trading venues and OTC trades in equities, including shares, ETFs, depository receipts, and similar instruments. This matters for compliance as it imposes new data contribution obligations on trading venues and APAs, aims to enhance market transparency and competitiveness under the FCA's 2025-2030 Strategy, and builds on FSMA 2023 powers for Data Reporting Services Providers (DRSPs). Firms must engage now to shape rules via consultation, with potential operations targeted for 2027.

What Changed

- CTP Obligations: Proposed rules establish core regulatory requirements for CTPs, including governance, operational resiliency, data collation/distribution, competitive pricing, and simple licensing...
Data Contributor Obligations: Trading venues and Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) must provide trade data (e.g., prices, volumes) to the CTP, covering trades across venues and OTC equity...
Scope and Outcomes: CT focuses on post-trade data initially (with trade-offs on pre-trade inclusion); seeks to increase UK equity data usage, improve liquidity visibility, support innovation, and...
Authorisation and Procurement: Streamlined process for CTP authorisation; FCA to run procurement for operator selection, balancing speed with robustness.
Evidence-Based Design: Addresses complexities like number of CTPs, revenue sharing, resiliency standards; follows prior feedback from CP23/15 and Europe Economics report.

Suggested Considerations

Respond to Consultation: Submit feedback by 13/02/2026 via FCA online form, email (equityct@fca.org.uk), post, or phone (020 7066 9758); focus on design trade-offs like pre-trade data, CTP numbers, revenue sharing, resiliency.
Data Readiness: Trading venues/APAs assess internal systems for mandatory data provision to CTP (e.g., trade prices/volumes); prepare for authorisation/procurement processes if pursuing CTP status.
Monitor Updates: Review full CP PDF (https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp25/31.pdf), January 2026 CBA methodology note, and linked docs like CP23/15, Europe Economics report, CP25/20.
Engage Stakeholders: Potential CTPs express interest via FCA opportunities; data users provide input on accessibility/pricing.
Compliance Mapping: Map proposals to existing DRSP/venue rules under FSMA 2023 and repealed DRSRs.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – While still in consultation (closes 13/02/2026), proposals mandate data contributions from trading venues/APAs and CTP setup, with 2027 operations targeted; non-engagement risks misaligned systems or missed CTP opportunities. Matters due to FSMA 2023 empowerment, links to equity transparency reforms (CP25/20), and strategic push for UK market competitiveness – firms face new reporting/resiliency burdens but gain liquidity/transparency benefits.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance high

January 24th 2026

PS25/22: Supporting consumers’ pensions and investment decisions: rules for targeted support

Policy statements

AI Analysis

The FCA's PS25/22 establishes a new regulatory framework for **targeted support**—a form of financial guidance that allows authorised firms to provide ready-made suggestions to consumer segments without conducting individualised suitability assessments. This framework addresses the UK's "advice gap" by enabling firms to deliver affordable, scalable financial support to an estimated 18 million consumers within a decade, fundamentally shifting how retail investors and pension savers access guidance on investment and retirement decisions.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions

🇬🇧 FCA Guidance medium

January 24th 2026

CP26/2: Financial Services Compensation Scheme – Management Expenses Levy Limit 2026/27

Consultation papers

AI Analysis

The FCA and PRA are consulting on setting the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) Management Expenses Levy Limit (MELL) at £113 million for 2026/27, comprising a £108 million management expenses budget (up £4.4 million from 2025/26, broadly in line with inflation) and a £5 million unlevied reserve. This matters because it caps the operating costs (e.g., IT, staff, legal, claims handling) that FCA- and PRA-authorised firms must fund via levies, excluding separate compensation payments, ensuring FSCS efficiency while controlling firm burdens.

What Changed

- Proposed MELL of £113 million for 2026/27: £108 million budget + £5 million unlevied reserve.
Budget increase of £4.4 million (4%) from 2025/26, aligned with inflation; excluding new revolving credit facility (RCF) enhancement costs, it reflects a £6.6 million nominal and £11 million...
Budget allocated across PRA and FCA fee blocks based on firms' regulated business volume, with smaller firms contributing less.
No changes to compensation levies, which remain separate and forecast at £342 million total levy including compensation.

Suggested Considerations

Review CP26/2 (FCA) and CP1/26 (PRA) alongside FSCS January 2026 Budget Update for allocation details.
Submit feedback on proposed MELL by 10 February 2026 to PRA (email or 20 Moorgate, London EC2R 6DA).
Budget for potential levy payments starting 1 April 2026, based on firm's share of PRA/FCA classes (see Appendix 4 in CP).
Monitor post-consultation Policy Statement/Handbook Notice for final MELL confirmation.

Key Dates

13 January 2026

- Consultation opens (CP26/2 FCA; CP1/26 PRA)

10 February 2026

- Consultation closes; submit comments via email or post to PRA (accepted on behalf of both regulators, shared anonymously with FSCS)

1 April 2026

- Final rules effective (start of FSCS financial year); PRA Policy Statement and FCA Handbook Notice expected post-consultation

31 March 2027

- MELL period ends

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Firms face predictable levy increases aligned with inflation, with levies allocated by business volume (minimal for small firms), but must act on consultation feedback by 10 February 2026 (today is 25 January 2026, leaving ~2 weeks). Matters for financial planning and budgeting, as MELL ensures FSCS operational funding without covering volatile compensation costs; failure to engage risks unaddressed cost concerns in final rules.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FCA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankInsuranceAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇦 SAMA News medium

January 24th 2026

SAMA’s Decision on Repo and Reverse Repo Rates

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇦 SAMA News

January 24th 2026

SAMA Hosts the FSB Plenary Meeting and EMDEs Forum

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇦 SAMA News low

January 24th 2026

Governor of SAMA: 2026 Budget Aims to Enhance Sustainable Economic Growth in the Kingdom

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC finds many auditors failing to demonstrate compliance with auditor independence obligations

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Victorian man sentenced in Cann Group insider trading case

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC’s annual report reveals strong growth in enforcement action and investigations and keen focus on strengthening markets

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC sends clear message to super trustees amid glaring retirement communications gaps

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerInsurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Directors of Perth-based financial services company charged over five-year failure to lodge financial accounts with ASIC

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

Queensland director sentenced for making a false or misleading statement to ASIC

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

RAMS penalised $20 million for widespread compliance failings regarding home loans

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC secures interim court orders barring Ferras Merhi from financial services activities

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Wealth ManagerAsset ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC bans former Crown Wealth Group director Brendan Rodwell for failing to report fees for no service conduct

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Wealth ManagerBank

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

ASIC statement - Clime entities

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

ASIC highlights financial reporting and audit findings for FY 2024–25 as part of expanded program of work

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure ESG Prudential / Capital Requirements

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Former CEO of AI marketing company Metigy pleads guilty to misleading investors and dishonestly using his position

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

A roadmap for capital markets to grow our economy

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

Prime Super pays ASIC infringement notice alleging misleading statements about tobacco investments

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerInsurance

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

HESTA pays ASIC infringement notices alleging misleading statements about carbon emissions

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerInsurance

Consumer Credit Banking & Credit

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC drives car finance providers to improve consumer outcomes

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankFintech

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC sues suspended WA mineral exploration company AVZ Minerals and directors for disclosure failures

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC announces 2026 enforcement priorities

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC sues SQM Research alleging misleading reports related to Shield

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

Infrabuild companies pay infringement notices for failing to lodge financial reports on time

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC suspends AFSL of Centurion Capital Limited

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

Sheffield Insurance directors convicted and fined over a five-year financial reporting failure

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

InsuranceAll Firms

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

ASIC cancels AFS licence of Ivy League Capital

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

ASIC imposes additional conditions on Learn To Trade to address compliance failures

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer

Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Cbus ordered to pay $23.5 million penalty for serious failures in processing members death benefits and insurance claims

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerInsurance

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC sues former Electro Optic Systems Holdings director and CEO Ben Greene for breach of director’s duties

Sectors:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Broker DealerFintech

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Defence systems manufacturer Electro Optic Systems Holdings admits to breaching continuous disclosure requirements

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Super trustees urged to accelerate progress on retirement support for members

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerInsurance

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News medium

January 24th 2026

ASIC calls for feedback on stamp duty and portfolio holdings disclosure requirements for super funds

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerInsurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC calls on Australian companies to adopt better practices to protect whistleblowers

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC issues over $2.2 million in infringement notices to 12 large proprietary companies for alleged failure to lodge financial reports

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Consumer Protection / Conduct

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Netwealth admits to First Guardian failures and agrees to compensate affected members $100 million

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

CADB cancels registration of Sydney auditor for breaching duties across 10 ASX-listed audits

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Macquarie Securities admits to misleading conduct and agrees to pay $35 million for systemic failures

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Federal Court orders $925,000 in penalties against RM Capital and SMSF Club for conflicted remuneration breaches

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Federal Court orders $250 million combined penalties against ANZ

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Pump and dump scammers put regulators on high alert

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerFintechAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC sues BDO Audit and its director Dean Just alleging materially false or misleading audit reports

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

ASIC secures nearly $40 million in refunds to investors and drives change after CFD sector falls short

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerFintech

🇦🇺 ASIC News high

January 24th 2026

Fund manager sentenced to 6 years’ jail in $3 million Platinum Asset Management insider trading case

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇺🇸 CFTC News medium

January 23rd 2026

Chairman Selig to Sponsor the CFTC’s Agricultural Advisory Committee

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerFintech

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement low

January 23rd 2026

Publication of financial reports: Federal Office of Justice imposes disciplinary fine on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft

On 6 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 2.500 euros on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft.

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €2,500 disciplinary fine on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft on 6 November 2025 for failing to submit its 2024 financial year accounting documents electronically to the Bundesanzeiger within the required period, breaching section 325 HGB. This enforcement action underscores BaFin's oversight of basic disclosure obligations under the German Commercial Code, serving as a reminder that even minor procedural lapses can trigger sanctions amid heightened scrutiny of listed companies' reporting. Compliance teams should note this as indicative of rigorous enforcement on timely electronic filings, particularly for firms under financial stress like BayWa.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement of existing requirements under the German Commercial Code (HGB):
Section 325 HGB: Mandates submission of accounting documents (e.g., annual financial statements, management reports) for public disclosure via the Bundesanzeiger operator in electronic form within...
Section 335 HGB: Provides the legal basis for disciplinary fines by the BfJ for non-compliance, with fines scaled to the breach's severity (here, €2,500 for delayed submission). No new rules were...

Suggested Considerations

Verify internal processes for electronic submission of accounting documents to Bundesanzeiger within HGB timelines (e.g., annual statements by end of March for December year-ends).
Implement automated reminders and dual-checks in finance/reporting workflows to prevent delays, especially during restructurings or audits.
Review and update compliance calendars for all HGB-disclosure obligations; conduct training for finance teams on section 325/335 HGB.
Monitor Bundesanzeiger portal for submission confirmations and retain proofs of timely filing to defend against BfJ inquiries.

Key Dates

31 December 2024 DEADLINE

End of BayWa AG's financial year; accounting documents due for submission shortly after (typically by 31 March 2025 for three-month deadline under section 325 HGB)

6 November 2025

BfJ issues disciplinary fine order for late submission

23 January 2026

BaFin publishes the enforcement notice

Compliance Impact

Urgency: low – This is a minor fine (€2,500) for a procedural breach with no appeal, signaling routine enforcement rather than a policy shift. It matters as a low-cost warning for all HGB-reporting firms to automate filings, avoiding escalation in repeat cases or amid BaFin's focus on disclosure (e.g., WpHG overlaps); high-profile firms like BayWa under restructuring face amplified scrutiny, but no immediate action required beyond process audits.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Points to Consider

The Federal Office of Justice in Germany imposed a disciplinary fine of 2,500 euros on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft for failing to submit its accounting documents for the financial year 2024 in electronic form within the prescribed period. This action highlights the importance of compliance with section 325 of the German Commercial Code. Companies must ensure timely submission of financial reports to avoid similar penalties.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement low

January 23rd 2026

Publication of financial reports: Federal Office of Justice imposes disciplinary fine on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft

On 6 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 2.500 euros on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft.

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €2,500 disciplinary fine on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft on 6 November 2025 for failing to submit its 2024 consolidated accounting documents electronically to the Bundesanzeiger within the required period, violating section 325 HGB. This enforcement action underscores BaFin's oversight of financial reporting obligations under German law and serves as a reminder of strict deadlines for public disclosure, even amid corporate challenges like BayWa's ongoing restructuring. Compliance teams should note it as a low-value but procedurally significant sanction, highlighting risks of administrative penalties for late filings.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement of existing requirements under the German Commercial Code (HGB):
Section 325 HGB: Mandates submission of consolidated accounting documents (e.g., annual financial statements, management reports) for disclosure in electronic form to the Bundesanzeiger operator...
Section 335 HGB: Provides the legal basis for disciplinary fines (Ordnungsgeld) up to €25,000 for breaches, with no appeal lodged by BayWa in this...

Suggested Considerations

Verify filing processes: AGs must ensure automated calendar alerts and electronic submission workflows to Bundesanzeiger (via Unternehmensregister or direct portal) before HGB deadlines.
Conduct gap analysis: Review past filings for similar breaches; implement dual controls (e.g., finance + legal sign-off) and escalation protocols for delays.
Train staff: Annual refreshers on § 325/335 HGB, emphasizing no extensions for restructuring (BayWa example).
Monitor Bundesanzeiger confirmations: Retain submission receipts as audit evidence.
No appeal if fined: As BayWa did not appeal, firms should assess fine proportionality pre-litigation.

Key Dates

31 March 2025 DEADLINE

- Presumed deadline for BayWa to submit 2024 consolidated documents (three months post-31 December FY-end under § 325 HGB para. 1)

6 November 2025

- Date BfJ imposed the €2,500 fine

23 January 2026

- BaFin publication date of the enforcement notice[https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Massnahmen/40c_neu_124_WpHG/neu/meldung_2026_01_23_baywa_ag_1_en.html]

Compliance Impact

Urgency: low - Fine is minimal (€2,500), procedural (no market manipulation or fraud), and isolated to one late filing amid BayWa's broader crises (e.g., forecast withdrawal 6 Oct 2025[https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/eqs/baywa-ag-baywa-ord-shs--0ah7/eqs-adhoc-baywa-ag-baywa-ag-withdraws-forec-/9153358], H1 2025 net loss €527.8m[https://www.baywa.com/binaries/pdf/content/documents/baywacms-en/downloadcenter/interim-report/half-year-report-2025/half-year-report-2025/baywacms:downloadpdf/BayWa+Group+Half-Year+Financial+Statements+2025_web.pdf]).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Points to Consider

The Federal Office of Justice in Germany imposed a disciplinary fine on BayWa Aktiengesellschaft for failing to submit its consolidated accounting documents for the financial year 2024 within the prescribed period. This action highlights the importance of timely submission of financial reports. Companies must ensure compliance with section 325 of the German Commercial Code to avoid similar penalties.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇬🇧 FCA News high

January 23rd 2026

FCA seeks feedback on further rules for cryptoasset firms

We are seeking views on further rules for cryptoasset firms as the final step in our consultations on our crypto rules. We have made significant progress in delivering our crypto roadmap and are helping firms to meet our standards and get ready for when the gateway opens in September 2026.We have set out our proposals on how the Consumer Duty, conduct standards, redress and safeguarding will apply to cryptoasset firms. We are also seeking feedback on our proposed approach to international cry...

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintech

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

January 22nd 2026

SEC and CFTC to Hold Joint Event on Harmonization, U.S. Financial Leadership in the Crypto Era

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Paul S. Atkins and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig will hold a joint event on Tuesday, Jan. 27, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at CFTC headquarters to discuss harmonization between the…

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

BankBroker DealerCrypto Exchange

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

January 22nd 2026

SEC Small Business Advisory Committee to Continue Discussion on Regulatory Framework for Finders and Begin Exploring the Private Secondary Market

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee announced that it will hold a public meeting at the SEC Headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026, at 10 a.m. ET. The meeting will also be…

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerFintechCrypto Exchange

🇺🇸 SEC News low

January 22nd 2026

SEC Approves 2026 PCAOB Budget and Accounting Support Fee

The Securities and Exchange Commission today approved the 2026 budget for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the related accounting support fee.The 2026 PCAOB budget totals $362.1 million. The 2026 budget reflects a 9.4% ($37.6…

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

January 22nd 2026

Letter from Claudia Buch, Chair of the Supervisory Board, to Mr Bas Eickhout, MEP, on banking supervision

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

January 22nd 2026

SEC Seeks Candidates for Membership on the Investor Advisory Committee

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking candidates for appointment as members of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 39 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to help protect investors and improve securities…

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

January 22nd 2026

Closing of the 2025 accounts: the AMF flags up points for vigilance and issues recommendations

Financial disclosures & corporate financing Periodic & ongoing disclosures Reporting ESEF Closing of the 2025 accounts: the AMF flags up points for vigilance and issues recommendations

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure ESG Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

January 21st 2026

Monitoring the quality of transaction reports received under Article 26 of MiFIR

Press release 26/02

Sectors:

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

January 21st 2026

CSSF Newsletter No 300 - January 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit Mortgage & Lending

🇺🇸 SEC News

January 20th 2026

Division of Corporation Finance Names Senior Staff

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the senior team from the Division of Corporation Finance responsible for advising division Director James Moloney on all matters the division has before the Commission. These include rulemaking…

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News

January 20th 2026

Christina M. Thomas to Rejoin the Division of Corporation Finance as Deputy Director

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Christina M. Thomas will rejoin the Division of Corporation Finance in February as deputy director and chief advisor on disclosure, policy, and rulemaking.“Christina brings her deep technical…

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

January 20th 2026

Press Conferences,Press Conference by KATAYAMA Satsuki, Minister of State for Financial Services (January 9, 2026)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking Payments & E-Money

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

January 20th 2026

Publication of the update of the ML/FT Sub-Sector Risk Assessment on Specialised Professionals of the Financial Sector providing corporate services (trust and company service provider activities)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News medium

January 20th 2026

Resolution Reporting Requirements - track changes

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇯🇵 JFSA News medium

January 20th 2026

Publication,FSA Weekly Review No.671 January 20, 2026

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

January 20th 2026

The AMF publishes the findings of its inspections on the role and involvement of the compliance function at investment services providers

Supervision Compliance Journalists Investment services providers The AMF publishes the findings of its inspections on the role and involvement of the compliance function at investment services providers

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

January 20th 2026

PS1/26 – Implementation of Basel 3.1: Final rules

Policy statement 1/26

AI Analysis

PS1/26 represents the UK Prudential Regulation Authority's final implementation framework for the Basel 3.1 international banking standards, effective 1 January 2027 (with market risk internal models delayed to 1 January 2028). This policy statement establishes mandatory capital, credit risk, operational risk, and market risk requirements for UK-regulated banks, building societies, and investment firms, addressing post-financial crisis shortcomings in risk-weighted asset (RWA) calculations and capital adequacy frameworks.

What Changed

Credit Risk Framework
Implementation of restrictions on Internal Ratings-Based (IRB) approach scope, effective 1 January 2027, with firms required to reclassify certain exposures (e.g., slotting approach IPRE exposures)...
Minor clarifications and amendments to the Standardised Approach and credit risk mitigation techniques. Operational Risk
Updated Business Indicator Component (BIC) calculation methodology requiring inclusion of the current financial year in the three-year average calculation (or an estimate if unavailable).
Clarifications on legal risk treatment and loss data set dates. Market Risk (Fundamental Review of the Trading Book – FRTB)

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate (by mid-2026)
*Conduct impact assessment: Quantify RWA changes under Basel 3.1 across credit risk, operational risk, and market risk frameworks.
*Review IRB permissions: Identify exposures requiring reclassification (e.g., IPRE to HVCRE) and prepare permission amendment applications.
*Assess FRTB-IMA readiness: For firms with existing IMA permissions, evaluate transition strategy for out-of-scope positions moving to ASA/SSA during interim period (2027–2027).
*Arrange board-level assurance: Establish governance framework for board oversight of RWA calculation accuracy and Basel 3.1 implementation.

Key Dates

20 January 2026

– PRA publishes PS1/26 (final rules)

2026 ICAAP submission deadline DEADLINE

– Must include Basel 3.1/SDDT impact assessment

1 January 2027

– Effective date for Basel 3.1 implementation (credit risk, operational risk, reporting/disclosure, IRB scope restrictions, SDDT regime)

1 January 2027

– Interim period begins for FRTB-IMA transition; existing IMA permissions retained; out-of-scope positions move to ASA/SSA

1 January 2028

– FRTB-IMA implementation effective date

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Points to Consider

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published the final rules for the implementation of Basel 3.1 standards in the UK, with an effective date of January 1, 2027. The rules aim to enhance the resilience of banks and improve the stability of the financial system. Firms must review and update their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the new requirements.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

January 20th 2026

PS3/26 – Restatement of CRR requirements – 2027 implementation – final

Policy statement 3/26

AI Analysis

PS3/26 is the PRA's final policy statement restating the remaining provisions of the UK Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) into the PRA Rulebook and related policy materials, effective 1 January 2027. This represents a critical step in the UK's transition away from assimilated EU law, consolidating fragmented regulatory requirements into a unified domestic framework while introducing targeted amendments to securitisation rules and External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI) mapping.

What Changed

Restatement of CRR Provisions The PRA is transferring remaining CRR requirements from the UK CRR into the PRA Rulebook without material changes to policy substance, except for targeted securitisation...
New: SS4/24 (Credit risk: Internal Ratings Based Approach), SS3/24 (Credit risk definition of default), SoP6/25 (Internal Model Method permissions), SoP7/25 (Securitisation waivers and permissions),...
Amended: SS15/13 (Groups), SS9/13 (Securitisation: Significant Risk Transfer), SS10/18 (Securitisation: General requirements), and SS10/13 (Credit risk: Standardised Approach) ECAI Mapping...

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate (by Q2 2026):
*Review applicability: Determine whether your firm falls within the scope of PS3/26 (banks, building societies, designated investment firms, or financial holding companies)
*Assess impact: Analyse how the restatement affects your current compliance framework, particularly regarding credit risk (IRB and standardised approaches), securitisation, and ECAI mapping
*Identify policy changes: Review the new and amended supervisory statements (SS3/24, SS4/24, SoP6/25, SoP7/25, SoP8/25) to understand expectations for permissions, waivers, and model approvals
*Medium-term (by Q3 2026):

Key Dates

28 October 2025

- PS19/25 (near-final policy) published

20 January 2026

- PS3/26 final policy statement published

1 January 2027

- All policies take effect; HM Treasury commencement regulations revoke relevant CRR provisions and replace them with PRA Rulebook rules and policy materials

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Points to Consider

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published a policy statement (PS3/26) that restates the remaining relevant provisions in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) within the PRA Rulebook and other policy materials. This change aims to ensure that the PRA's rules and policies are consistent with the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The policy statement is relevant to PRA-authorised banks, building societies, and other financial institutions.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

January 20th 2026

PS4/26 – The Strong and Simple Framework: The simplified capital regime for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs) – final

Policy statement 4/26

AI Analysis

PS4/26 finalizes the **simplified capital regime for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs)**, a tailored prudential framework designed to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining capital resilience for smaller, domestically-focused UK banks and building societies. This represents the completion of Phase 1 of the PRA's "Strong and Simple" initiative and introduces materially lighter capital, liquidity, and reporting requirements for qualifying firms, with implementation effective January 1, 2027.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Points to Consider

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has introduced a simplified capital regime for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs) to reduce regulatory complexity while maintaining adequate capital. The new regime will take effect on 2027-01-01. This change aims to simplify capital requirements for smaller banks and building societies.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News high

January 20th 2026

Resolution Reporting Requirements (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

January 20th 2026

Deactivated validation rules and EBA small validation packages COFREP (Updated)

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News

January 19th 2026

Sharon Donnery: The ECB’s approach to simplification in banking regulation and supervision

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇸🇦 SAMA News medium

January 16th 2026

SAMA Decision on Repo and Reverse Repo Rates

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇪 ADGM News

January 16th 2026

UAE Sustainable Finance Working Group Publishes Fourth Statement During Abu Dhabi Finance Week 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇪 ADGM News

January 16th 2026

APIAC and Opus 2 Announce Office Openings in the ADGM Dispute Resolution Hearing Centre as Abu Dhabi’s Dispute Resolution Community Expands

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇺 ASIC News

January 16th 2026

Media releases

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇬🇧 FCA News medium

January 16th 2026

Court approves FCA’s proposals to distribute Asset Land investor funds

On 19 December 2025 the High Court approved the FCA’s proposals to distribute funds to Asset Land investors. The Court has directed the FCA to pay funds to investors in the Asset Land schemes who provide valid bank account details to the FCA on or before 20 February 2026.Investors who have not received previous communications from the FCA or who have not updated their contact information are requested to immediately contact the FCA using the details below.Please ensure this is completed no la...

Deadline: 20 February 2026

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 FCA News high

January 16th 2026

FCA fines oil rig consultant £309,843 for insider dealing

The FCA has fined Russel Gerrity £309,843 for using inside information to net himself £128,765. As a consultant, Mr Gerrity had access to information about whether oil and gas had been discovered during the drilling of wells. Between October 2018 and January 2022, he took advantage of this and used inside information to buy shares in Chariot Oil & Gas Limited and Eco (Atlantic) Oil and Gas Plc ahead of announcements that increased their price. On another occasion, he used inside information t...

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

January 16th 2026

ECB advances climate and nature work after delivering on 2024-2025 plan

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 16th 2026

Results of the enforcement of the 2024 financial and non-financial information published by issuers subject to the Transparency Law

Communiqué

AI Analysis

The CSSF's January 2026 enforcement report documents the results of its 2025 examination campaign on 2024 financial and non-financial disclosures by issuers under Luxembourg's Transparency Law. This publication is critical for compliance professionals because it reveals systematic compliance gaps across financial reporting (IFRS), sustainability reporting (ESRS), and Alternative Performance Measures (APMs), with 27% of enforcement decisions resulting in injunctions for non-compliance.

What Changed

The regulatory landscape has evolved significantly with the introduction of new sustainability reporting requirements:
ESRS Implementation (First Year): 2024 marked the first full reporting year under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), with the CSSF conducting a fact-finding exercise to assess...
Taxonomy Disclosures Amendment: On 4 July 2025, the European Commission adopted a Delegated Act amending the Taxonomy Disclosures as part of the Omnibus package, affecting Article 8 of the Taxonomy...
Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) Focus: The CSSF emphasized the importance of issuers not only disclosing the results of their DMA but also explaining the process itself, including granular...

Suggested Considerations

*Financial Information (IFRS):
*Enhanced Note Disclosures: Provide sufficient disaggregation and additional information in financial statement notes for material amounts and variances, particularly where information is not presented on the face of primary statements. The CSSF emphasizes compliance with paragraph 112(c) of IAS 1.
*Cash Flow Statement Presentation: Ensure cash flows are presented on a gross basis (not net), exclude non-cash transactions, and disclose restricted cash balances with accompanying management commentary as required by paragraph 48 of IAS 7.
*Segment Reporting Completeness: Clearly disclose all income and expense items in segment reporting, even when not separately provided to or reviewed by the Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM), if they are included in reported segment results.
*Going Concern Assessment: Maintain high transparency regarding accounting policies and judgments applied when classifying going concern assumptions.

Key Dates

5 December 2024

On 07 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 50.000 euros on pferdewetten.de AG.

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €50,000 disciplinary fine on pferdewetten.de AG on November 7, 2025, for violations related to the publication of financial reports under German securities law (WpHG - Wertpapierhandelsgesetz). This enforcement action underscores regulatory expectations for timely and accurate financial disclosure compliance, particularly for publicly traded or regulated entities in the gaming/betting sector.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

January 15th 2026

Publication of financial reports: Federal Office of Justice imposes disciplinary fine on pferdewetten.de AG

On 07 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 50.000 euros on pferdewetten.de AG.

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €50,000 disciplinary fine on pferdewetten.de AG on 7 November 2025 for violations related to the publication of financial reports under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). This enforcement action underscores BaFin's and BfJ's strict oversight of timely and accurate financial disclosures by public companies, serving as a warning to listed firms on the consequences of non-compliance. It matters because it highlights procedural lapses in ad-hoc publicity and annual reporting, potentially increasing scrutiny on similar entities amid ongoing regulatory emphasis on market integrity.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement decision enforcing existing obligations under § 37w WpHG (disciplinary measures for breaches of publication duties) and related...
Timely publication of annual financial reports and ad-hoc announcements via electronic means (e.g., DGAP platform).
Ensuring completeness and accuracy of published financial statements, including management reports.
Immediate correction of any publication errors or delays to prevent market misinformation. No new rules were introduced; the fine reinforces pre-existing standards without amendments. (Source:...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct an internal audit of recent financial report publications (last 12-24 months) for timeliness, accuracy, and platform compliance (e.g., DGAP/EGAP).
Implement or enhance pre-publication checklists, including dual approvals and automated validation tools to flag delays or errors.
Train IR and compliance staff on WpHG §§ 15, 111-114 (ad-hoc and periodic reporting) and § 37w (sanctions).
Review outsourcing arrangements for reporting (e.g., to service providers) to ensure accountability under MaGo (Minimum Requirements for Risk Management).
Document remedial actions and report to the supervisory board; consider voluntary self-disclosure for any identified breaches to mitigate fines.

Key Dates

07 November 2025

- Date BfJ imposed the €50,000 disciplinary fine on pferdewetten.de AG

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This matters as a concrete example of BfJ's willingness to levy fines (here €50,000, modest but precedential) for reporting lapses, signaling heightened enforcement post-2025 ESMA-aligned updates to transparency rules. Firms with similar profiles face elevated audit risk, especially with BaFin's 2026 focus on digital reporting resilience; non-compliance could escalate to higher penalties (up to €10M or 5% turnover under EU MAR equivalents) or trading suspensions. Prioritize if your firm has recent publication issues.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

January 15th 2026

Publication of financial reports: Federal Office of Justice imposes disciplinary fine on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG

On 7 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 50,000 euros on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €50,000 disciplinary fine on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG on 7 November 2025 for failing to publish required financial reports, violating transparency obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). This enforcement action underscores BaFin's heightened focus on financial reporting compliance for listed companies, serving as a warning for timely and accurate disclosures amid strategic priorities on market integrity and early risk detection. Compliance teams should view it as a signal of rigorous enforcement against reporting lapses, potentially leading to escalated penalties for repeat or severe breaches.

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is an enforcement case applying existing WpHG requirements for periodic financial reporting by publicly listed entities. The case reinforces the statutory duty under Section 40c WpHG (as referenced in the BaFin publication title) to publish financial reports promptly, with BfJ acting as the disciplinary authority for such violations. It aligns with BaFin's ongoing risk-based enforcement on financial reporting for publicly traded companies, emphasizing compliance with transparency and disclosure rules.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct immediate gap analysis of financial reporting processes to ensure compliance with WpHG Sections 37 et seq. (annual/interim reports) and 40c (publication duties).
Implement automated monitoring and reminders for publication deadlines (e.g., 4 months for annual reports, 3 months for half-yearly).
Strengthen internal controls, including pre-publication reviews by compliance and legal teams, with escalation to senior management.
Train responsible personnel on disciplinary risks, documenting adherence to avoid BfJ fines (up to €5 million or 3% of turnover for severe cases).
For listed firms, integrate reporting into broader governance frameworks, aligning with BaFin's data-driven supervision expectations.

Key Dates

7 November 2025

- BfJ imposes €50,000 disciplinary fine on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG for financial reporting violations

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - This fine is modest (€50,000) and targets a specific reporting failure, not systemic issues like AML or IT deficiencies seen in larger cases (e.g., J.P. Morgan's €45 million fine). It matters as a precedent in BaFin's 2026-2029 strategy prioritizing market transparency, financial reporting enforcement, and early detection of non-compliant firms, signaling increased audits and penalties for disclosure lapses that undermine market integrity.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement medium

January 15th 2026

Publication of financial reports: Federal Office of Justice imposes disciplinary fine on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG

On 7 November 2025, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz - BfJ) imposed a disciplinary fine amounting to 50,000 euros on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG

AI Analysis

The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) imposed a €50,000 disciplinary fine on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG on 7 November 2025 for failing to publish required financial reports, highlighting enforcement of financial reporting obligations under German securities law (WpHG). This case underscores BaFin's and BfJ's commitment to market transparency and integrity, serving as a warning to listed companies on the consequences of non-compliance with ad-hoc and periodic reporting duties. Compliance professionals should note it as evidence of intensified scrutiny on reporting accuracy amid BaFin's 2026-2029 strategic priorities.

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is an enforcement action enforcing existing requirements under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG § 124), which mandates timely publication of financial reports for publicly listed companies. The case reaffirms the disciplinary framework where BfJ, as the competent authority, can impose fines up to €700,000 (or 5% of turnover) for violations, with this €50,000 fine reflecting a proportionate measure for the breach.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct immediate gap analysis of financial reporting processes to ensure compliance with WpHG §§ 37c, 115, and 124 on publication of annual, half-yearly, and ad-hoc reports via electronic means (e.g., company website and Bundesanzeiger).
Implement automated monitoring and reminders for reporting deadlines, with dual sign-off by compliance and finance teams.
Train management on personal liability for reporting failures, including documentation of internal controls to demonstrate due diligence in supervisory reviews.
For firms with similar profiles, voluntarily self-report past lapses to BfJ/BaFin to potentially mitigate fines, referencing this case as precedent.

Key Dates

7 November 2025

- Date BfJ imposed the €50,000 disciplinary fine on TTL Beteiligungs- und Grundbesitz-AG for financial reporting violations

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - This fine, while modest, signals BfJ's active enforcement role in financial reporting, amplified by BaFin's 2026-2029 strategy prioritizing "market transparency and integrity" through increased monitoring of publicly traded companies. It matters because reporting breaches erode investor trust and can escalate to larger penalties or trading suspensions; firms should prioritize process reviews now to avoid higher fines amid BaFin's push for data-driven supervision and early detection of issues.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BaFin source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

January 15th 2026

PRA to streamline supervision as part of 2026 priorities

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has today published its supervisory priorities for 2026, outlining in a letter its sector-specific priorities for the coming year to all banks, building societies, insurers and other PRA-regulated firms.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsuranceAll Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance low

January 15th 2026

Circular CSSF 19/708 - Annex (Updated)

Electronic transmission of documents to the CSSF

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 19/708 mandates the electronic transmission of specified documents to the CSSF via secure platforms like e-file or SOFiE, effective from February 1, 2019, replacing prior paper or other methods. This updated annex (as amended by Circular CSSF 21/790 and further revisions up to April 1, 2025) standardizes submissions for investment funds and related entities, reducing administrative burdens while ensuring document integrity and CSSF accessibility. Compliance professionals must monitor the dynamic annex list on the CSSF website to avoid nullified submissions.

What Changed

- Mandatory Electronic-Only Submission: Documents listed in Annex I must be transmitted exclusively via e-file (http://www.e-file.lu) or SOFiE...
Dynamic Annex Updates: The annex, published on the CSSF website, is regularly updated (e.g., latest noted April 1, 2025) and includes prospectuses, management regulations, annual reports, risk...
Scope Expansion: Extends beyond UCIs to securitisation undertakings (2004 Law), pension funds (2005 Law), SICARs, and Luxembourg IFMs; repeals prior Circulars CSSF 09/423 and 08/371.
Filer Responsibilities: Entities ensure documents match official final hard copies, handle content/format accuracy, and check annex updates regularly.

Suggested Considerations

Register/access e-file or SOFiE platforms if not already (test/production environments available since February 2019).
Consult and adhere to the latest Annex I for document list, nomenclatures, and formats (PDF with full functionality).
Ensure submissions are final/official versions matching hard copies; use specified identifiers for UCIs/SIFs/SICARs.
Implement processes for automatic/manual transmission (e.g., via updated sending services v4.9.0 or transmission module 6.6.0).
Train staff on responsibilities and integrate into reporting workflows; reference CSSF FAQs for closing documents.

Key Dates

28 January 2019

Publication date; of original Circular CSSF 19/708

1 February 2019

Entry into force; Mandatory electronic transmission for listed documents; non-electronic submissions null and void

22 December 2021

Amendment; by Circular CSSF 21/790

1 April 2025

Latest annex update; noted

Ongoing DEADLINE

Regular checks required; Entities must monitor CSSF website for annex updates

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Low (for new implementations post-2019; medium for ongoing monitoring). This matters for operational efficiency and CSSF relations, as non-compliance risks rejected filings, delays (e.g., approvals under SFDR processes), or supervisory scrutiny, but long-standing rule (since 2019) with established platforms reduces immediate pressure. Firms must prioritize annex vigilance to avoid disruptions in routine reporting like annual reports or prospectuses.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerInsurance

🇪🇺 ESMA News medium

January 13th 2026

ESMA’s Digital and Data strategies support supervision of EU financial markets

ESMA’s Digital and Data strategies support supervision of EU financial markets 13 January 2026 About ESMA Market data Press Releases The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has adopted a new Digital Strategy and updated its Data Strategy . They reflect ESMA’s commitment to smarter regulatory reporting and technology-driven supervision, promote synergies and innovation while reducing unnecessary complexity. The digital strategy...

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking Investment Management

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

January 13th 2026

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Venezuela

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat Änderungen des Anhangs 1 der Verordnung vom 28. März 2018 über Massnahmen gegenüber Venezuela (SR 946.231.178.5) publiziert.

AI Analysis

On January 13, 2026, Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) updated Annex 1 of the Ordinance on Measures against Venezuela (SR 946.231.178.5), reflecting changes to the list of designated persons and entities subject to Swiss asset freezing measures. This update is critical for Swiss financial institutions and regulated entities as it directly impacts sanctions compliance obligations and requires immediate verification of client and counterparty lists against the revised designations.

What Changed

The regulatory update modifies the designated persons list under Switzerland's unilateral freezing measures against Venezuela.
Update their sanctions screening systems with revised designations
Identify any existing relationships with newly designated or de-designated persons/entities
Implement immediate asset freezing for any newly added designations
Cease all transactions with blocked parties unless specifically authorized

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Screening: Conduct comprehensive screening of all client and counterparty databases against the updated Annex 1 designations within 24-48 hours of publication.
*Asset Identification: Identify and document any assets, accounts, or positions held by or on behalf of newly designated persons/entities.
*Freeze Implementation: Immediately freeze all identified assets and block all transactions involving designated parties.
*Notification: Report any blocked assets to SECO as required under Swiss sanctions legislation (typically within 10 business days).
*Transaction Review: Suspend all pending transactions with Venezuela-related counterparties pending compliance verification.

Key Dates

January 5, 2026

- FINMA ordinance on asset freezing (RS 196.127.85) enters into force at 11 a.m., freezing assets of 37 designated persons

January 13, 2026

- SECO publishes updated Annex 1 to SR 946.231.178.5 (the update referenced in your query)

Immediate DEADLINE

- Compliance obligations commence upon publication; no grace period for implementation

Compliance Impact

Urgency: CRITICAL

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇦🇪 DFSA News medium

January 13th 2026

DFSA to host webinar on updated Crypto Token framework and DIFC’s digital assets…

Sectors:

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintech

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Crypto & Digital Assets

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement medium

January 12th 2026

Paul Tzur and David Morrell Named Deputy Directors of the Division of Enforcement

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Paul H. Tzur and David M. Morrell have been named as Deputy Directors of the Division of Enforcement. Mr. Tzur joined the Commission on January 6, 2026, as the Deputy Director overseeing the…

AI Analysis

The SEC announced on January 12, 2026, the appointment of Paul H. Tzur and David M. Morrell as Deputy Directors of the Division of Enforcement, with Tzur joining on January 6, 2026, to oversee key operations. This personnel change is part of a broader reorganization replacing Regional Directors with Deputy Directors for more centralized oversight of investigations. It matters for compliance teams as it signals greater consistency in enforcement approaches, potentially affecting investigation timelines, Wells process strategies, and settlement negotiations across SEC-regulated entities.

What Changed

This announcement reflects structural reforms rather than new substantive regulations:
Replacement of Regional Directors with Deputy Directors, centralizing reporting from local offices (e.g., Boston, Fort Worth, Atlanta) and specialized units directly to headquarters-led Deputy...
Enhanced supervision of enforcement decisions, aiming for consistency and reduced regional variations in handling investigations.
Complements parallel Wells process reforms under Chairman Paul Atkins, including a baseline four-week response period, greater access to evidence, and senior-level meetings for transparency and due...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update internal protocols for SEC investigations to align with centralized reporting structures, anticipating uniform standards across regions.
Train legal/compliance staff on refined Wells process (e.g., prepare for four-week timelines and evidence access requests).
Monitor upcoming SEC communications for Enforcement Director Judge Margaret Ryan's guidance on fraud-focused priorities.
Assess current or potential matters for earlier engagement with Deputy Directors on case theories and resolutions.

Key Dates

January 6, 2026

- Paul H. Tzur joins SEC as Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement.

January 12, 2026

- SEC announces appointments of Paul Tzur and David Morrell as Deputy Directors.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This matters due to its role in ongoing SEC transition under Chairman Atkins and Director Ryan, promising more predictable enforcement but requiring adaptation to centralized decision-making and Wells enhancements. While not imposing immediate obligations, it could accelerate case resolutions and shift settlement dynamics, especially amid 2025's enforcement slowdown from staffing cuts (15-20% headcount reduction). Firms with active investigations should prioritize strategic adjustments now.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBroker DealerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

January 12th 2026

Administrative sanction of 12 January 2026

Administrative sanction imposed on BigRep SE

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on BigRep SE on 12 January 2026 for failing to publish its half-yearly financial report as of 30 June 2025, as required under Article 4 of Luxembourg's Transparency Law of 11 January 2008 (as amended). This enforcement action underscores the CSSF's rigorous supervision of periodic disclosure obligations for issuers with Luxembourg as their home Member State, serving as a reminder of the consequences for non-compliance with transparency requirements. Compliance professionals should note this as evidence of ongoing CSSF scrutiny on timely reporting, with potential fines scaled based on circumstances per Article 26a.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement of existing obligations under the Transparency Law of 11 January 2008 (as amended), specifically Article 4, which mandates issuers to publish half-yearly financial reports, including effective dissemination, storage on the Officially Appointed Mechanism (OAM), and filing with the CSSF. No new rules are introduced; the sanction reinforces the unchanged deadlines and processes for periodic information publication, with the CSSF acting under Article 25(2) as the competent authority.

Suggested Considerations

Issuers: Immediately review internal processes for half-yearly financial reporting to ensure compliance with Article 4, including timely publication, OAM storage, and CSSF filing; conduct gap analyses against Transparency Law deadlines.
All affected parties: Implement or enhance monitoring calendars for periodic disclosures, with automated alerts for period-ends like 30 June; perform mock filings to test dissemination and storage mechanisms.
BigRep SE specifically: Consider appeal to Tribunal administratif within 3 months if contesting the fine; remediate the specific non-compliance by publishing the overdue report if not already done.
wide actions are mandated beyond general adherence, but proactive audits are advisable given CSSF's supervisory focus.

Key Dates

30 June 2025 DEADLINE

- Period-end date for the required half-yearly financial report that BigRep SE failed to publish

12 January 2026

- Date of administrative sanction imposition by CSSF and publication of the decision

Within 3 months of 12 January 2026 DEADLINE

(i.e., by 12 April 2026) - Deadline for BigRep SE to lodge a court action with the Tribunal administratif against the sanction, per Article 27 of the Transparency Law

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – This matters as a specific enforcement example in CSSF's ongoing verification of periodic information publication, signaling heightened scrutiny rather than a systemic shift. While the €10,000 fine is modest, it demonstrates fines for even isolated breaches (scaled per Article 26a), potentially escalating for repeats; firms should prioritize reporting calendars to avoid reputational harm and publication of sanctions under Article 26b(1).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 12th 2026

Population concerned by the enforcement

No description available.

AI Analysis

This CSSF publication, dated January 12, 2026, identifies the specific population (likely a firm or individual) subject to an enforcement action, such as an administrative sanction, as part of the CSSF's transparency in supervisory measures. It matters because it signals CSSF's active enforcement priorities, potentially in areas like AML or reporting failures, enabling firms to assess similar risks in their operations and strengthen compliance to avoid parallel actions. Published amid rising focus on financial crime typologies like sexual extortion, it underscores the regulator's commitment to public accountability.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

🇦🇪 DFSA News high

January 12th 2026

The DFSA implements major updates to Crypto Token Regulatory Framework,…

12 JAN 2026, 07:30 AM The DFSA implements major updates to Crypto Token Regulatory Framework,…

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintechAll Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

January 9th 2026

SEC to Host Hybrid Event on Regulation S-P for Small Firms

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced it will hold its third and final outreach event to help firms comply with amendments to Regulation S-P. The event, which is focused on small firms, is open to in-person or virtual attendance, and is…

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager Premium Capital Management (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on 11 September 2025 against alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) Premium Capital Management for failing to submit its annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline, breaching the cooperation obligation under Article 5(1) of Luxembourg's AML/CFT Law of 12 November 2004. This enforcement action underscores the CSSF's strict enforcement of AML reporting duties, signaling heightened scrutiny on timely supervisory cooperation amid ongoing AML risks in Luxembourg. Compliance teams should view this as a reminder of the low tolerance for even administrative lapses, with potential for escalated fines in repeat cases.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement precedent under existing rules: non-compliance with Article 5(1) of the AML/CFT Law, which mandates annual submission of a financial crime questionnaire ("Questionnaire") to the CSSF. The fine was calculated per Articles 8-4(1), 8-4(2)(f), and 8-4(3)(a), considering circumstances under Article 8-5(1). Publication followed Article 8-6(1) after a proportionality assessment, confirming no market stability risks.

Suggested Considerations

Immediately review internal processes for annual Questionnaire submission, ensuring calendar invites and automated reminders for the 4 April deadline (covering prior year-end data).
Conduct a gap analysis on AML/CFT cooperation obligations under Article 5(1), including response protocols to CSSF reminders or queries.
Update compliance calendars and train staff on escalation procedures; document all submissions with proof (e.g., timestamps, acknowledgments).
For AIFMs: Verify CSSF registration status under Article 3(2) of the 12 July 2013 AIFM Law and align with broader AML duties.
If late, proactively submit overdue items and request meetings if needed, as non-response forfeits mitigation opportunities.

Key Dates

31 December 2024

- Reference year-end for the financial crime Questionnaire

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

- Statutory deadline for Questionnaire submission to CSSF

11 September 2025

- Date CSSF imposed the €10,000 administrative fine after non-submission despite reminders

9 January 2026

- Publication date of the sanction decision

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – This €10,000 fine for a straightforward reporting failure demonstrates CSSF's willingness to penalize non-cooperation swiftly, even without aggravating factors, but the amount is modest and targeted at administrative breaches. It matters as a warning shot in Luxembourg's AML landscape, where repeated failures could trigger higher fines (up to proportionality limits under Article 8-5), reputational damage via public naming, or supervisory escalations; firms should audit 2025/2026 reporting now to preempt similar actions, especially post-NRA updates.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager Sunbricks GP S.à r.l. (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a **€10,000 administrative fine on Sunbricks GP S.à r.l.**, an alternative investment fund manager, for failing to submit a mandatory annual financial crime questionnaire by the April 4, 2025 deadline, despite two formal reminders. This enforcement action demonstrates the CSSF's strict approach to cooperation obligations under Luxembourg's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) framework and signals that non-submission of required compliance documentation—even without evidence of underlying financial crime—triggers regulatory penalties.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but rather an enforcement action clarifying existing obligations:
Mandatory Annual Questionnaire Requirement: All professionals supervised, authorized, or registered by the CSSF must submit an annual questionnaire on financial crime by April 4 each year, covering...
Cooperation Obligation: Article 5(1) of the amended Law of 12 November 2004 on AML/CFT establishes a non-negotiable duty to cooperate with the CSSF, which includes timely submission of requested...
Administrative Fine Framework: The CSSF applies Article 8-4 of the AML/CFT Law to impose fines for non-compliance, with amounts determined under Article 8-5 based on all relevant circumstances.

Suggested Considerations

regulated entities must:
*Establish Calendar Controls: Implement internal compliance calendars flagging the April 4 annual questionnaire submission deadline with sufficient lead time (minimum 4-6 weeks before deadline)
*Designate Responsible Parties: Assign clear ownership for questionnaire completion and submission, with backup contacts
*Prepare Documentation: Maintain contemporaneous records of financial crime controls, suspicious activity reporting, and compliance activities throughout the year to support accurate questionnaire responses
*Monitor Communications: Ensure all CSSF correspondence is tracked and escalated immediately; do not ignore reminder notices

Key Dates

April 4, 2025 DEADLINE

– Annual financial crime questionnaire submission deadline (for year ending December 31, 2024)

Before September 11, 2025

– Two reminder notices issued by CSSF to Sunbricks GP

September 11, 2025

– Administrative fine decision date; questionnaire still not submitted

January 9, 2026

– Publication date of enforcement decision

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerAll Firms

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager Capitalis Premiere Group (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) Capitalis Premiere Group on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit its annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline, despite two reminders, breaching the cooperation obligation under Article 5(1) of Luxembourg's AML/CFT Law of 12 November 2004. This enforcement action underscores the CSSF's strict enforcement of AML reporting duties, signaling heightened scrutiny on timely supervisory cooperation for Luxembourg-regulated entities. Compliance teams should note this as a low-value but public reminder of potential fines for administrative lapses in AML processes.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement precedent under existing rules: non-compliance with the annual financial crime questionnaire submission, mandated by Article 5(1) of the AML/CFT Law, triggers fines per Articles 8-4(1), 8-4(2)(f), and 8-4(3)(a). The CSSF considered all relevant circumstances under Article 8-5(1) to set the €10,000 fine amount and published the sanction nominatively after proportionality assessment per Article 8-6(1), confirming no market stability risks.

Suggested Considerations

Ensure timely submission of annual financial crime questionnaires by 4 April each year (for prior calendar year data); implement calendar reminders and escalation processes for CSSF requests.
Respond promptly to CSSF reminders or queries on AML/CFT compliance to avoid escalation to fines; document any delays with justification evidence.
Review internal AML cooperation protocols, including governance for questionnaire completion, and train staff on Article 5(1) obligations; consider requesting in-person meetings if disputing CSSF demands.
No retroactive actions needed for this case, but conduct gap analysis on reporting workflows to prevent similar breaches.

Key Dates

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

- Deadline for submitting the annual financial crime questionnaire covering the year ending 31 December 2024

11 September 2025

- Date CSSF imposed the €10,000 administrative fine on Capitalis Premiere Group for non-submission

9 January 2026

- Date of CSSF publication of the sanction decision

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - This €10,000 fine is modest but publicly names the firm, amplifying reputational risk in Luxembourg's competitive fund domicile; it matters as a clear CSSF signal of zero tolerance for basic cooperation failures in AML, potentially foreshadowing stricter enforcement amid EU AML harmonization pressures. AIFMs face ongoing annual risk, with non-response despite reminders treated as willful breach; firms with weak reporting controls should prioritize fixes to avoid cumulative fines or escalations.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager Lion Management (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on Lion Management, an alternative investment fund manager, on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit a mandatory annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline. This enforcement action demonstrates the CSSF's commitment to enforcing cooperation obligations under Luxembourg's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing framework, with direct implications for all AIFMs regarding timely compliance with supervisory reporting requirements.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but rather an enforcement action clarifying existing obligations. However, it reinforces critical compliance requirements:
Mandatory Annual Questionnaire Submission: All CSSF-supervised professionals, including AIFMs, must submit an annual questionnaire on financial crime by the specified deadline (in this case, 4 April...
Cooperation Obligation: Article 5(1) of the amended Law of 12 November 2004 on the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing establishes a non-negotiable obligation to cooperate with the...
Enforcement Escalation: The CSSF will issue reminders before imposing sanctions, but failure to respond to reminders results in administrative fines determined under Article 8-4 of the AML/CFT Law.

Suggested Considerations

*Establish Calendar Controls: Implement firm-wide systems to track the annual financial crime questionnaire deadline (typically 4 April for the prior calendar year)
*Designate Responsible Parties: Assign clear ownership for questionnaire completion and submission to the CSSF, with escalation procedures
*Monitor CSSF Communications: Establish protocols to immediately flag and respond to any CSSF correspondence, including reminders or requests for information
*Document Submission: Maintain evidence of timely submission (timestamps, confirmation receipts) to demonstrate compliance
*Escalate Non-Compliance Immediately: If submission cannot be met by deadline, proactively contact the CSSF to explain delays and request extensions rather than ignoring reminders

Key Dates

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

- Deadline for submission of annual financial crime questionnaire for year ending 31 December 2024

11 September 2025

- Date CSSF imposed administrative fine after two reminders went unheeded

9 January 2026

- Publication date of the administrative sanction decision

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager Agriland Management S.A. (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF), Luxembourg's financial regulator, imposed a **EUR 10,000 administrative fine on Agriland Management S.A.**, an alternative investment fund manager, on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit a mandatory annual financial crime questionnaire by the April 2025 deadline. This enforcement action demonstrates the CSSF's commitment to enforcing cooperation obligations under Luxembourg's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT) framework and signals heightened scrutiny of compliance with supervisory reporting requirements.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but rather an enforcement action that clarifies existing obligations:
Mandatory Annual Reporting: All CSSF-supervised professionals must submit an annual questionnaire on financial crime by 4 April each year, covering the preceding calendar year.
Cooperation Obligation: Article 5(1) of the amended Law of 12 November 2004 on AML/CFT establishes a non-negotiable duty to cooperate with the CSSF, including timely submission of requested...
Enforcement Escalation: The CSSF will issue reminders for non-compliance, but continued failure to respond triggers administrative sanctions without requiring evidence of intentional misconduct.

Suggested Considerations

*Establish Reporting Calendars: Implement systems to track the 4 April annual deadline for financial crime questionnaire submissions
*Designate Responsible Personnel: Assign clear accountability for completing and submitting the questionnaire to the CSSF
*Respond to Regulatory Requests: Do not ignore CSSF reminders; engage proactively, including requesting in-person meetings if clarification is needed
*Document Justifications: If unable to meet deadlines, provide written evidence explaining the delay and proposed remediation timeline
*Monitor Supervisory Communications: Establish procedures to ensure regulatory correspondence is tracked and escalated appropriately

Key Dates

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

– Deadline for submission of financial crime questionnaire for year ending 31 December 2024

Before 11 September 2025

– Two reminder notices issued by CSSF to Agriland Management S.A

11 September 2025

– Administrative fine imposed

9 January 2026

– Sanction published by CSSF

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager Bedrock I GP S.à r.l. (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) Bedrock I GP S.à r.l. on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit its annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline, despite two reminders, breaching the cooperation obligation under Article 5(1) of Luxembourg's AML/CFT Law of 12 November 2004. This enforcement action underscores CSSF's strict enforcement of AML reporting duties and serves as a public warning to supervised entities on timely supervisory compliance. It matters because it demonstrates that even modest fines are pursued for basic reporting lapses, potentially signaling heightened scrutiny on AIFMs' AML processes amid ongoing regulatory focus on financial crime risks.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement of existing obligations under the amended Law of 12 November 2004 on the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT Law). Specifically, it reaffirms the mandatory annual submission of the CSSF's financial crime questionnaire ("Questionnaire") by supervised professionals, including AIFMs under Article 3(2) of the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs, as part of the cooperation duty in Article 5(1).

Suggested Considerations

Immediately verify submission status of the 2024 Questionnaire (or any outstanding); if overdue, submit promptly with justification to mitigate further escalation.
Implement automated calendar alerts and internal workflows for all CSSF reporting deadlines, including annual AML/CFT Questionnaire.
Conduct a compliance gap analysis on cooperation obligations under Article 5(1) AML/CFT Law, documenting reminder responses and evidence retention.
Train senior managers and compliance teams on supervisory interactions, including rights to request in-person meetings before fines.
Review governance for timely escalation of CSSF reminders to decision-makers.

Key Dates

31 December 2024 DEADLINE

- Reference period end for the Questionnaire covering financial crime compliance

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

- Statutory deadline for Questionnaire submission to CSSF

11 September 2025

- Date of administrative fine imposition (€10,000) after non-submission despite reminders

9 January 2026

- Publication date of the sanction decision by CSSF

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - This is a post-facto enforcement on a past breach (2024 reporting cycle), with the €10,000 fine relatively low, indicating proportionality for a first-time or isolated lapse. It matters as a leading indicator of CSSF's 2025-2026 focus on AML cooperation, with multiple similar AIFM sanctions published simultaneously, risking escalated fines or reputational harm for repeat offenders; firms should prioritize reporting hygiene to avoid public naming, which CSSF deems non-disruptive to markets here.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager C5 Haven Cyber GP S.à r.l. (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) C5 Haven Cyber GP S.à r.l. on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit its annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline, despite two reminders, breaching the cooperation obligation under Article 5(1) of Luxembourg's AML/CFT Law of 12 November 2004. This enforcement action underscores CSSF's strict enforcement of AML reporting duties and serves as a public warning to supervised entities on the consequences of non-cooperation. It matters because it demonstrates that even modest fines will be levied for procedural lapses, potentially signaling increased scrutiny on timely AML compliance submissions amid broader regulatory focus on financial crime risks.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement of existing obligations under the amended AML/CFT Law:
Annual Questionnaire Submission: Supervised professionals, including AIFMs under Article 3(2) of the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs, must submit an annual financial crime questionnaire...
Fine Provisions: Fines are imposed per Articles 8-4(1), 8-4(2)(f), and 8-4(3)(a), with amounts determined by relevant circumstances under Article 8-5(1); publication follows Article 8-6(1) after...

Suggested Considerations

Immediate Review: AIFMs and similar entities must verify their internal processes for annual Questionnaire submission, ensuring calendar reminders and automated tracking for 4 April deadlines.
Remediation if Late: Submit overdue Questionnaires promptly with explanations; request in-person meetings if needed, as the sanctioned AIFM failed to do so.
Process Enhancements: Implement escalation protocols for CSSF reminders, designate a senior compliance officer for oversight, and document all submissions/acknowledgments to demonstrate cooperation under Article 5(1).
Training: Conduct firm-wide training on AML/CFT cooperation duties, emphasizing that non-response leads to fines without need for justification.

Key Dates

31 December 2024

- Reference year-end for the financial crime Questionnaire

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

- Statutory deadline for submitting the Questionnaire for the year ending 31 December 2024

11 September 2025

- Date CSSF imposed the €10,000 administrative fine after noting non-submission despite reminders

9 January 2026

- Date of CSSF publication of the sanction decision

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - This is a low-value fine (€10,000) for a procedural breach, not involving substantive AML failures like suspicious transactions or sanctions screening delays seen in higher fines (e.g., €185,000 on Rakuten Bank). It matters as a precedent for CSSF's willingness to publicly name-and-shame for basic non-cooperation, potentially escalating to higher penalties for repeats; with publication on 9 January 2026, firms should prioritize 2025/2026 reporting to avoid similar exposure amid CSSF's active enforcement (3192+ sanctions published).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement medium

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 11 September 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on the alternative investment fund manager C5 S.à r.l. (“AIFM”)

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €10,000 administrative fine on alternative investment fund manager C5 Haven Cyber GP S.à r.l. on 11 September 2025 for failing to submit its annual financial crime questionnaire by the 4 April 2025 deadline, despite reminders, breaching the cooperation obligation under Article 5(1) of Luxembourg's AML/CFT Law of 12 November 2004. This enforcement action underscores CSSF's strict enforcement of reporting duties in AML/CFT compliance, serving as a warning to supervised entities on the consequences of administrative delays. It matters because it highlights low-tolerance for even minor procedural lapses, potentially signaling increased scrutiny on annual reporting amid broader AML/CFT priorities.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement of existing obligations under the amended AML/CFT Law:
Article 5(1) mandates supervised professionals, including AIFMs under Article 3(2) of the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs, to cooperate fully with CSSF, including submitting the annual financial crime...
Breach occurred due to non-submission of the 2024 year-end Questionnaire, with fine determined per Articles 8-4(1), 8-4(2)(f), 8-4(3)(a), and 8-5(1).
Publication of the sanction follows Article 8-6(1), after proportionality assessment to avoid market stability risks. No new rules introduced; reinforces ongoing duty to meet CSSF reporting timelines...

Suggested Considerations

Review and confirm timely submission of all pending or future CSSF financial crime questionnaires; establish automated calendar reminders for annual deadlines (e.g., 4 April for prior year-end data).
Implement escalation protocols for CSSF reminders, ensuring immediate response and submission within days, not weeks.
Conduct internal audit of AML/CFT cooperation obligations, documenting justifications for any delays and preparing evidence for potential CSSF hearings or meetings.
Update compliance policies to prioritize Article 5(1) duties, including training for responsible persons on fine risks under Article 8-4.
For AIFMs: Verify alignment with Article 3(2) of AIFM Law and integrate questionnaire processes into governance frameworks.

Key Dates

4 April 2025 DEADLINE

- Deadline for submission of financial crime Questionnaire covering year ending 31 December 2024

11 September 2025

- Date CSSF imposed €10,000 administrative fine on C5 Haven Cyber GP S.à r.l. for non-submission despite reminders

9 January 2026

- Date of CSSF publication announcing the sanction

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Matters due to CSSF's demonstrated willingness to impose and publicize fines for straightforward reporting failures, even at €10,000, which could escalate for repeat or severe cases; acts as a precedent amid rising AML/CFT enforcement (e.g., larger fines like €214,000 in similar contexts). Firms delaying submissions risk reputational damage from nominative publications under Article 8-6(1), market confidence erosion, and cumulative penalties; proactive remediation now prevents higher scrutiny in upcoming inspections.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerHedge Fund

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

January 9th 2026

Administrative sanction of 23 July 2025

Administrative sanction imposed on JTC (Luxembourg) S.A.

AI Analysis

The CSSF imposed a €102,000 administrative fine on JTC (Luxembourg) S.A. on 23 July 2025 for breaches in its professional obligations as a depositary of non-financial assets under the AIFM Law, identified during an on-site inspection from February 2023 to January 2024 covering activities up to December 2022. This enforcement action highlights CSSF's scrutiny of depositary functions, particularly risk assessment and oversight controls, serving as a warning for similar entities to strengthen compliance amid rising supervisory focus on AIFM depositaries.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action, not a regulatory change; it enforces existing requirements under Article 51(1) (1st and 7th indents) and Article 51(2) (1st sub-paragraph, 3rd indent) of the amended Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs (AIFM Law), and related provisions like Article 92(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 (CDR 231/2013).

Suggested Considerations

related entities) must:
Conduct immediate gap analyses on risk assessment processes for AIF strategies and AIFM organization per Article 92(1) CDR 231/2013.
Implement robust verification processes for AIFM compliance with asset delegation rules.
Ensure availability of key documentation and evidence of controls for the depositary function, addressing pre-2022 gaps if applicable.
Develop and test oversight processes, leveraging self-identified improvements and action plans as mitigating factors, as JTC did prior to inspection.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 26/904 updates Circular CSSF 24/853 (as amended by Circular CSSF 25/870) by introducing a revised Long Form Report (LFR) for investment firms, featuring a digital self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) and enhanced auditor reports focused on AML/CFT and risk management. This matters because it aligns reporting with CSSF's risk-based supervision under CSSF 4.0, reduces redundancies, applies proportionality based on business models, and mandates digital submission to improve efficiency and data analysis.

What Changed

- Revised LFR Structure: Comprises four parts in a single digital document: (1) yearly SAQ completed by investment firms; (2) descriptive elements verified by approved statutory auditors (REAs); (3)...
Digital Format: Completion and submission via CSSF's online portal, supporting CSSF 4.0 digital strategy for efficient processing.
Proportionality and Scope: Applies individually to investment firms (no consolidated LFR if under CSSF consolidated supervision); focuses on incremental, relevant information tied to business models,...
Enhanced AML/CFT Focus: Requires descriptions of commercial policy, ML/FT risk management, roles/responsibilities, branch/subsidiary/tied agent compliance; REA must assess adequacy of...
REA Responsibilities: Verify/ensure adequacy of SAQ elements, assess descriptions, perform control procedures, and provide assessments on AML/CFT policy implementation across entities.

Suggested Considerations

Investment Firms: Complete and submit the digital SAQ yearly via CSSF portal, providing descriptions of business model, ML/FT risks, commercial policy, monitoring, AML/CFT roles, and entity-level compliance; ensure data on fund transfers (e.g., missing payer/payee info) is included.
REAs/Auditors: Verify SAQ adequacy, assess descriptions, perform corroborative controls, supplement with findings (e.g., AML/CFT audit declarations), independently assess ML/FT risks/organization, and integrate into single LFR document.
General: Review existing processes for proportionality (focus on incremental info); update AML/CFT policies/documentation for branches/subsidiaries/tied agents; prepare for digital submission; document risk assessments thoroughly.
Ongoing: Monitor compliance with related regs like Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (effective 30 December 2024, per draft bill 8387).

Key Dates

Financial year ending 31 December 2024

- Applicability of revised LFR to all investment firms; submissions begin for this period onward on a yearly basis

No specific submission deadline stated DEADLINE

- Yearly production required via CSSF portal; firms should align with existing annual reporting cycles for auditors (typically post-year-end)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Applies immediately to FY ending 31 December 2024 reports, requiring swift updates to reporting processes, digital tools, and AML/CFT documentation amid CSSF's risk-based shift; non-compliance risks supervisory actions, as LFR directly informs CSSF oversight on key prudential/AML areas with no transition period specified.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Insurance & Pensions

🇬🇧 FCA News medium

January 8th 2026

Pension value to be put under the spotlight

Pension schemes must now publish transparent data on their performance, costs, and service quality, according to new proposals from the FCA, DWP, and TPR. Pension schemes will need to publish clear data on their performance, costs and quality of service, under proposals announced today by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and The Pensions Regulator (TPR). If a pension offers poor value, firms and trustees must then fix it by moving savers to bet...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerInsurance

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 FCA News medium

January 8th 2026

2026 fines

This page contains information about fines published during 2026. The total amount of fines so far is £371,700. Firm or individual finedDateAmountReasonRichard Adam07/01/2026£232,800The Final Notice refers to knowing concern in breaches of Article 15 of the Market Abuse Regulations, Listing Rule 1.3.3R, Listing Principle 1 and Premium Listing Principle 2.Zafar Khan07/01/2026£138,900The Final Notice refers to knowing concern in breaches of Article 15 of the Market Abuse Regulations, Listing Ru...

Sectors:

Topics:

Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇺🇸 SEC Enforcement medium

January 7th 2026

SEC Proposes Amendments to the Small Entity Definitions for Investment Companies and Investment Advisers for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed amendments to the rules that define which registered investment companies, investment advisers, and business development companies qualify as small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility…

AI Analysis

The SEC proposed amendments on January 7, 2026, to expand the definitions of "small entities" under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) for registered investment advisers (RIAs), investment companies, and business development companies by significantly raising asset thresholds last updated in 1998. This would increase the number of qualifying small entities, enabling the SEC to better assess regulatory impacts and potentially provide tailored relief like extended compliance timelines during rulemaking. It matters because it could indirectly reduce compliance burdens for mid-sized firms by influencing future SEC rules to minimize disproportionate effects on smaller players.

What Changed

- Raise the RAUM threshold for RIAs to qualify as small entities from $25 million to $1 billion, with conforming changes for control affiliates.
Increase the net asset threshold for investment companies from $50 million to $10 billion.
Update aggregation of related funds from "group of related investment companies" to "family of investment companies" as defined in Form N-CEN for easier identification.
Introduce inflation adjustments to thresholds every 10 years via SEC order, without formal rulemaking.
Make corresponding amendments to Form ADV and rules on continuing hardship exemptions for electronic filing.

Suggested Considerations

Submit public comments by the deadline to influence thresholds, alternatives (e.g., client types, headcount), or exclusions (e.g., funds advised by small RIAs).
Monitor Federal Register for exact publication and comment instructions; review proposed rule and fact sheet on SEC site (https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/01/s7-2026-01).
Assess internal status: Calculate current RAUM/net assets against new thresholds to anticipate RFA benefits in upcoming rulemakings.
No immediate compliance changes, as this affects SEC rulemaking process only; prepare for potential indirect impacts via future rules.

Key Dates

January 7, 2026

- SEC issues proposal and press release

60 days after Federal Register publication

- Public comment period closes (publication expected shortly after January 7; exact date TBD, likely March 2026 based on estimates)

No stated adoption date

- Typically at least one year post-comment period under normal processes

Every 10 years post

adoption; - Inflation adjustments to thresholds via SEC order

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This proposal does not impose direct new requirements or alter existing obligations—it's procedural for SEC's RFA analyses during rulemaking. However, adoption could lead to meaningful indirect benefits for mid-sized RIAs and funds, such as longer compliance phases or reduced burdens in rules on reporting, recordkeeping, or vendor reliance, addressing outdated 1998 thresholds amid industry AUM growth. Firms should engage now via comments to shape outcomes, but no urgent operational changes needed.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original SEC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance high

January 7th 2026

Statistical Notice 2026/01 - Bank of England Levy: Deadline for Eligible Liabilities Return form submission for the Levy Year 2026/27

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

This Statistical Notice 2026/01 from the Bank of England specifies the submission deadline for the Eligible Liabilities Return form, which calculates firms' contributions to the Bank of England Levy for the 2026/27 levy year. It matters because non-compliance risks penalties, late fees, or enforcement actions under the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, ensuring timely funding for the Bank's resolution and stability functions. Compliance teams must integrate this into levy reporting calendars to avoid operational disruptions.

What Changed

The notice updates definitions and guidance in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder, focusing on the deadline for submitting the Eligible Liabilities Return (ELR) form for the 2026/27 levy year. It does not introduce new substantive rules but reinforces procedural requirements for accurate levy base calculations, such as eligible liabilities as defined in section 15 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. No specific changes to levy rates or methodologies are detailed, but it aligns with ongoing updates to banking statistics reporting.

Suggested Considerations

Review and calculate eligible liabilities as of 31 December 2026 using BoE definitions from the Yellow Folder.
Submit completed ELR form electronically via BoE portal by the specified deadline (likely 31 January 2027).
Retain audit trails, supporting data, and reconciliations for potential PRA/BoE queries.
Update internal systems and controls for levy calculation; notify compliance teams if data gaps exist.
Monitor BoE portal for form updates or extensions.

Key Dates

31 January 2027 DEADLINE

- Deadline for submission of Eligible Liabilities Return form for Levy Year 2026/27 (inferred as standard end-January deadline post-levy year-end, aligned with historical BoE notices; confirm via Yellow Folder for exact day)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Missing the submission deadline triggers automatic late penalties (e.g., interest at Bank Rate + 5%) and potential supervisory referrals. This directly impacts prudential reporting obligations, with firms facing cash flow hits from levy payments (historically £200-300m total annually). Prioritize in Q4 2026 planning, as it coincides with year-end reporting under Basel 3.1 transitions.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Deadline: 31 December 2026

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News

January 7th 2026

Future Banking Data: November CFO Roundtable: summary

On 12 November the PRA hosted a roundtable meeting with Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) of systemically important firms operating in the UK, to discuss Future Banking Data (FBD).

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

January 7th 2026

Global situation of undertakings for collective investment at the end of November 2025

Press release 26/01

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

January 6th 2026

Minutes of the UK Money Markets Code Sub-Committee – December 2025

The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA News low

January 6th 2026

ESMA publishes report on cross-border marking of funds including statistics on notifications

ESMA publishes report on cross-border marking of funds including statistics on notifications 06 January 2026 The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published its third report on marketing requirements and marketing communications under the Regulation on cross-border distribution of funds . For the first time, the report includes statistics on notifications of cross-border marketing of funds. Drawing on input from Na...

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News low

January 6th 2026

PRA Regulatory Digest - December 2025

The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation high

January 5th 2026

ESMA launches selection of Consolidated Tape Provider for OTC derivatives

ESMA launches selection of Consolidated Tape Provider for OTC derivatives 05 January 2026 MiFID - Secondary Markets Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, is launching the first selection procedure for the Consolidated Tape Provider (CTP) for over the counter (OTC) derivatives. Entities interested to apply are encouraged to register and submit their requests to participate in the selection procedure by 11 February 20...

AI Analysis

ESMA has launched the first selection procedure for a **Consolidated Tape Provider (CTP) for OTC derivatives**, with applications due by 11 February 2026 and a decision expected by early July 2026. This initiative establishes a critical market infrastructure component to enhance transparency and efficiency in the EU's OTC derivatives market by consolidating post-trade data into a single, continuous electronic stream.

What Changed

The regulatory framework introduces several substantive requirements:
CTP Mandate: The selected provider will consolidate post-trade data from trading venues and other data contributors into a unified electronic stream, enabling market participants to access accurate,...
Data Scope: The CTP will collect and disseminate OTC derivatives data in accordance with ESMA's Final Report on transparency for derivatives, with specific technical standards governing pre- and...
Technical Standards: ESMA has finalized regulatory technical standards (RTS) prescribing data quality requirements for CTPs and data contributors.
Implementation Date: All derivatives-related changes, including amendments to RTS 2 (derivatives transparency) and the OTC derivatives CTP data requirements, are scheduled for 1 March 2027.

Suggested Considerations

*For prospective CTP applicants:
*For trading venues and data contributors:
trade OTC derivatives data to the selected CTP from 1 March 2027
minute maximum delay for real-time dissemination
*For market participants:

Key Dates

11 February 2026 DEADLINE

– Deadline for entities to register and submit requests to participate in the selection procedure

Early July 2026

– ESMA to adopt reasoned decision on selected applicant

1 September 2026

– Mandatory use of new OTC derivatives identifying reference data (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003)

1 March 2027

– Single application date for all derivatives-related changes: amendments to RTS 2, Package Order RTS, and OTC derivatives CTP data requirements

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇸🇬 MAS Guidance high

January 2nd 2026

ID 01/26 MAS Notice 126 - Lapses in Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Report Submissions

Inform and remind insurers of MAS Notice 126 requirements and expectations on ORSA report submissions.

AI Analysis

This MAS circular ID 01/26, published on 02 January 2026, addresses observed lapses in ORSA report submissions under MAS Notice 126, specifically reminding insurers not to fully rely on group-level ORSA reports to meet local requirements. It matters because non-compliance risks regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, and weakened enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks essential for solvency and risk oversight in Singapore's insurance sector.

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is a reminder and clarification of existing MAS Notice 126 requirements on ORSA submissions. Key emphasis: Insurers cannot fully rely on group ORSA reports—local entities must produce their own tailored ORSA reports reflecting entity-specific risks, time horizons, and business strategies. It reinforces ORSA as a core ERM tool involving own risk assessment, solvency projections, and stress testing (e.g., macroeconomic scenarios).

Suggested Considerations

Review current ORSA processes to confirm entity-specific reports are produced, not mere group report adoptions.
Conduct gap analysis against Notice 126: Ensure ORSA covers risk identification, solvency assessment, stress testing (e.g., macroeconomic, liquidity), and forward-looking horizons aligned with business planning.
Update board and senior management oversight of ERM, documenting rationale for any group influences while maintaining local tailoring.
Submit ORSA reports to MAS as per ongoing Notice 126 timelines (typically annually); remediate any past lapses via voluntary disclosure if needed.
Enhance internal controls, training, and audit trails for ORSA compliance to avoid future observations.

Key Dates

19 February 2021

Survey on the amount of covered deposits held on 31 December 2025

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF-CPDI 25/49 is a **mandatory quarterly reporting requirement** for Luxembourg credit institutions and postal financial service providers to submit data on covered deposits as of December 31, 2025. This survey directly feeds into the Single Resolution Fund's annual target level calculation and the Luxembourg deposit guarantee scheme's contribution assessments, making it essential for regulatory compliance and fund management.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

BankPayment Provider

🇪🇺 ESMA Consultation medium

December 23rd 2025

ESMA publishes latest Spotlight on Markets newsletter featuring updates on market integration and transparency

ESMA publishes latest Spotlight on Markets newsletter featuring updates on market integration and transparency 23 December 2025 ESMA newsletter The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published the latest edition of its Spotlight on Markets newsletter. This edition opens with ESMA welcoming the European Commission’s ambitious proposal on market integration, underlining the importance of deeper, more integrated and ef...

AI Analysis

ESMA's latest *Spotlight on Markets* newsletter (November/December 2025 issue, published 23 December 2025) summarizes key regulatory updates on EU market integration, transparency enhancements, and supervisory actions, including welcoming the European Commission's market integration proposal and announcing an equity consolidated tape provider (CTP) selection. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals accelerating EU efforts to deepen capital markets integration, improve data transparency, and strengthen oversight under MiFID II and DORA, potentially requiring firms to adapt governance, reporting, and conflict management practices.

What Changed

- ESMA welcomes the European Commission's 4 December 2025 legislative package on market integration, emphasizing robust governance and market infrastructure for deeper EU capital markets.
Announcement of selected applicant for the equity consolidated tape provider (CTP), advancing MiFIR transparency for equity markets by improving post-trade data consolidation and access.
Publication of ESMA's final report on Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) for non-equity transparency, clarifying pre- and post-trade transparency rules for bonds, derivatives, and other non-equity...
Launch of a Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on MiFID II conflicts of interest requirements to promote supervisory convergence and governance across Member States.
European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) designate critical ICT third-party providers under DORA, enhancing oversight of key outsourcing risks.

Suggested Considerations

Review the final non-equity transparency RTS and assess impacts on trading and reporting systems for compliance by any upcoming application dates (not specified).
Evaluate MiFID II conflicts of interest policies in preparation for the CSA; conduct internal audits and enhance training/staff attestations on identification and mitigation.
Monitor equity CTP rollout for changes to post-trade data access and costs; update vendor contracts if applicable.
For DORA-impacted firms, map exposures to designated critical ICT providers and strengthen due diligence, contractual clauses, and exit strategies.
Asset managers: Audit fund names against guidelines and review UCITS distribution practices for cost transparency.

Key Dates

4 December 2025

- European Commission publishes market integration legislative package; legislative process expected to take at least one year

23 December 2025

- Newsletter publication date

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - The newsletter highlights finalized standards (e.g., RTS, CTP) and imminent actions (e.g., CSA, DORA designations) that require proactive preparation, but lacks hard deadlines or immediate mandates. It matters because it previews intensified supervision on transparency, conflicts, and resilience, aligning with EU Capital Markets Union goals; firms delaying reviews risk findings in upcoming CSAs or audits, especially amid ESMA's push for convergence.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

December 23rd 2025

Circular CSSF 25/903

Update of Circular CSSF 24/850 on the practical rules concerning the descriptive report and the self-assessment questionnaire to be submitted on an annual basis by support PFS, as well as the engagement of the réviseurs d’entreprises agréés (approved statutory auditors) of support PFS and practical rules concerning the management letter and the separate report to be drawn up on an annual basis.

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/903 updates Circular CSSF 24/850, refining practical rules for support Professional of the Financial Sector (support PFS) in Luxembourg regarding their annual descriptive report, self-assessment questionnaire, and the roles of approved statutory auditors (réviseurs d’entreprises agréés). It specifies requirements for auditors' engagement, management letters, and separate annual reports. This matters for support PFS as it enhances supervisory oversight, ensures consistent reporting quality, and strengthens internal controls, directly impacting compliance and audit processes amid CSSF's focus on robust PFS supervision.

What Changed

- Updates to Descriptive Report and Self-Assessment Questionnaire: Refines content, format, and submission requirements for support PFS's annual submissions, emphasizing more detailed disclosures on...
Auditor Engagement Rules: Introduces specific practical guidelines for approved statutory auditors, including mandatory scope of work, independence confirmations, and standardized procedures for...
Management Letter and Separate Report: Establishes detailed rules for auditors to issue an annual management letter (addressing findings, recommendations, and remediation) and a separate report for...
Enhanced Documentation and Evidence: Requires support PFS and auditors to provide verifiable evidence (e.g., checklists, testing samples) supporting self-assessments, with stricter CSSF validation...

Suggested Considerations

*Review and Update Processes: Support PFS must map current reporting against new templates in CSSF 25/903 and revise internal procedures for descriptive reports and self-assessments.
*Engage/Confirm Auditors: Select or confirm approved statutory auditors compliant with new engagement rules; execute updated engagement letters incorporating circular requirements by Q4 2025.
*Implement Templates and Testing: Adopt CSSF-provided templates for reports, management letters, and separate reports; conduct sample-based testing of controls as specified.
*Training and Governance: Train compliance/audit teams on changes; ensure board approval of self-assessments and auditor findings.
*Submit on Time: Prepare and file all documents by 30 April deadlines, retaining evidence for CSSF inspections.

Key Dates

30 April (annually) DEADLINE

Submission Deadline; Support PFS must submit descriptive report, self-assessment questionnaire, management letter, and separate auditor report to CSSF by 30 April following the financial year-end (first applicable: 30 April 2026 for FY 2025)

31 December 2025 DEADLINE

Preparation Milestone; Auditors must be engaged and initial scoping completed by year-end 2025 for FY 2025 compliance

1 January 2026

Effective Date; Applies to annual reporting cycles starting for financial year 2025 onwards

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High. This is high urgency for support PFS due to the impending 30 April 2026 deadline for FY 2025 submissions, with non-compliance risking supervisory fines, license reviews, or reputational damage under CSSF's PFS enforcement regime. It matters as it tightens audit accountability, potentially increasing costs (e.g., auditor fees) while reducing reporting errors—critical for smaller support entities with limited resources.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

All FirmsFintechPayment Provider

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

December 23rd 2025

Circular CSSF 25/902

Repeal of Circular CSSF 19/731 regarding the documents to be submitted on an annual basis by credit institutions.

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/902 repeals Circular CSSF 19/731 (as amended by Circular CSSF 19/710), which previously detailed annual document submission requirements for credit institutions, shifting to a dynamic list published on the CSSF website. This matters because it streamlines compliance by centralizing and updating requirements online, reducing reliance on static circulars while maintaining submission obligations. Credit institutions must transition to the new process to avoid disruptions in prudential reporting.

What Changed

- Repeal of prior circulars: Circular CSSF 19/731 and its amendment via Circular CSSF 19/710 are fully repealed, eliminating the fixed list of annual submission documents.
Shift to website-based guidance: The updated list of required documents, affected entity categories, electronic submission channels, and deadlines is now published on the CSSF’s Prudential reporting...
Ongoing obligations: The requirement to submit documents annually remains unchanged; only the reference source and potential content updates via the website are modified.

Suggested Considerations

Review the CSSF Prudential reporting webpage (https://www.cssf.lu/en/prudential-reporting-credit-institutions/) and summary table (https://www.cssf.lu/en/Document/summary-of-documents-to-be-submitted-on-an-annual-basis/) to identify current document lists, categories, channels, and deadlines.
Update internal reporting processes, templates, and workflows to reference the website instead of the repealed circular.
Confirm ongoing annual submissions via specified electronic channels; test interactive table for applicability to the institution's profile.
Archive references to Circular CSSF 19/731 in policies and train staff on the change.

Key Dates

12 December 2019

- Original issuance of repealed Circular CSSF 19/731 (archived on 23 December 2025)

23 December 2025

- Publication and effective date of Circular CSSF 25/902, repealing Circular CSSF 19/731; transition to website-based list begins

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – The repeal does not alter core submission obligations but requires procedural updates to avoid non-compliance with potentially evolving lists under CRR3 alignments. It matters for operational efficiency, as failure to adapt could lead to missed deadlines or incorrect submissions, especially with website updates tied to EU regulations like Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 (CRR3, applicable from 1 January 2025). Institutions should prioritize review before the next annual cycle to ensure seamless reporting.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

December 23rd 2025

Circular CSSF 24/850 (as amended by Circular CSSF 25/903) (Updated)

Practical rules concerning the descriptive report and the self-assessment questionnaire to be submitted on an annual basis by support PFS.Engagement of the réviseurs d’entreprises agréés (approved statutory auditors) of support PFS and practical rules concerning the management letter and the separate report to be drawn up on an annual basis.

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 24/850, as amended by Circular CSSF 25/903, establishes practical rules for support Professional of the Financial Sector (support PFS) in Luxembourg to submit annual descriptive reports and self-assessment questionnaires, while also defining the roles of approved statutory auditors (réviseurs d’entreprises agréés) in issuing management letters and separate reports. This guidance standardizes supervisory reporting and audit processes to enhance oversight of support PFS, which provide essential back-office services to authorized PFS. It matters because non-compliance risks supervisory sanctions, reputational damage, and operational disruptions for entities reliant on support PFS structures.

What Changed

- Standardized Reporting Templates: Introduces detailed formats and content requirements for the annual descriptive report and self-assessment questionnaire, covering governance, risk management,...
Auditor Engagement Rules: Mandates approved statutory auditors to perform specific procedures, issue a management letter highlighting control weaknesses, and prepare a separate report confirming...
Amendments via CSSF 25/903: Updates clarify submission procedures, expand self-assessment criteria (e.g., adding cybersecurity and outsourcing risk questions), and refine auditor independence...
Frequency and Scope: Annual submissions required without exceptions; scope limited to support PFS (not primary PFS), emphasizing substance over form in service descriptions.

Suggested Considerations

Annual Reporting Cycle: 1. By year-end, conduct internal self-assessment using the prescribed questionnaire template (available via CSSF portal).
February to review submissions, test controls, and issue management letter (flagging deficiencies) plus separate compliance report.
Governance Updates: Review and update internal policies on risk assessment, auditor selection, and remediation of management letter findings; ensure board oversight of submissions.
Auditor Coordination: Verify auditor qualifications per CSSF register; implement any remediation plans from prior-year management letters before next cycle.
Record-Keeping: Maintain 5-year audit trail of all supporting documentation for CSSF inspections.

Key Dates

1 January 2025

- Effective date of original Circular CSSF 24/850

15 December 2025

- Effective date of amendments in Circular CSSF 25/903, applicable to 2025 reporting cycle onwards

31 March annually DEADLINE

- Deadline for submission of descriptive report, self-assessment questionnaire, management letter, and separate auditor report to CSSF (first applicable for FY 2024 reporting due 31 March 2025)

End of February annually DEADLINE

- Support PFS must engage auditors and provide necessary data to enable timely report preparation

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This is a recurring annual obligation with a firm 31 March deadline, where delays trigger automatic CSSF notifications and potential fines (up to €250,000 per Law 1993). It matters for support PFS as it intensifies scrutiny on operational resilience in a post-SFI (2021) landscape, where CSSF prioritizes substance in delegated functions; failure risks de-authorization or client outflows. Early implementation of templates and auditor pipelines is essential to avoid first-year pitfalls.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Senior Managers / Governance

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Investment Management Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

December 22nd 2025

AMF Enforcement Committee fines the depositary CACEIS Bank for breaches of its professional obligations

Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers AMF Enforcement Committee fines the depositary CACEIS Bank for breaches of its professional obligations

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined CACEIS Bank €3.5 million and issued a warning on 17 December 2025 for breaches of its professional obligations as depositary for seven French-law UCITS funds managed by H2O AM LLP (later transferred to H2O AM Europe). This decision underscores the AMF's strict enforcement of depositary oversight duties, particularly in verifying fund managers' investment monitoring systems, asset valuations, and compliance with prospectus constraints like issuer limits and security ratings. It matters for compliance teams as it highlights personal accountability risks and potential fines for inadequate due diligence in fund depositary roles, signaling heightened scrutiny amid past H2O fund issues.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action, not a regulatory change; it reinforces existing obligations under French UCITS rules (transposing UCITS Directive V) for depositaries. Key upheld objections include:
Failure to perform sufficient checks on the asset management company's (AMC) systems for monitoring UCITS investment ratios and valuing unlisted securities.
Inadequate verification of investment decision legality, such as compliance with prospectus limits on debt security ratings, derivative types, and the 10% single-issuer bond exposure cap. No new...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct gap analysis: Review depositary control frameworks against AMF expectations for verifying AMC investment monitoring, unlisted asset valuations, and prospectus compliance (e.g., 10% issuer limits, ratings).
Enhance oversight processes: Implement robust, documented checks on AMC systems, including independent testing of ratios, legality of investments, and derivatives.
Training and audits: Train staff on UCITS depositary duties; perform internal audits of ongoing fund oversight, prioritizing illiquid/unlisted exposures.
Monitor appeals: Track any CACEIS appeal, as outcomes could set precedents; update policies if upheld.
Reporting: Ensure timely escalation of suspected AMC breaches to AMF if identified.

Key Dates

17 December 2025

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision date: €3.5M fine and warning imposed on CACEIS Bank

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - This recent (Dec 2025) decision directly impacts depositaries with €3.5M precedent for oversight failures, amid AMF's pattern of multi-million fines (e.g., €5.67M total in related 2024 case involving CACEIS). It elevates risks for UCITS/AIF depositaries handling non-standard assets, demanding immediate control reviews to avoid personal sanctions, warnings, or business restrictions, especially post-H2O scandal.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇩🇪 BaFin Enforcement high

December 22nd 2025

flatexDEGIRO Bank AG: BaFin imposes administrative fines

On 16 December 2025, BaFin imposed two administrative fines amounting to €560,000 on flatexDEGIRO Bank AG. The company had contravened obligations under the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz - WpHG). At the beginning of 2022, flatexDEGIRO Bank AG advertised free investment services on two of its websites without clearly indicating that a processing fee would be charged on a regular basis. flatexDEGIRO Bank AG adapted its practices to comply with the legal requirements in ...

AI Analysis

BaFin imposed €560,000 in administrative fines on flatexDEGIRO Bank AG on December 16, 2025, for misleading marketing of investment services that advertised free offerings without clearly disclosing mandatory processing fees. This enforcement action underscores BaFin's strict interpretation of fair and transparent marketing requirements under the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG) and demonstrates that even corrective action taken by firms does not eliminate regulatory penalties for past violations.

What Changed

The enforcement action clarifies BaFin's expectations regarding fair and clear marketing communications for investment services:
Investment services providers must explicitly and unambiguously disclose all material costs, including processing fees, when advertising services as "free"
Marketing materials must present both benefits and risks of services in a balanced manner, with relevant risks highlighted alongside advantages
These obligations apply across all marketing channels, including company websites
The requirements are grounded in the WpHG and further specified in EU regulations and MiFID II guidance The violation centered on flatexDEGIRO's failure to clearly indicate that regular processing...

Suggested Considerations

*For flatexDEGIRO Bank AG (already completed):
Modify marketing materials to clearly and explicitly disclose all material costs and fees
Ensure balanced presentation of benefits and risks across all marketing channels
*For all investment services providers (preventive compliance):
*Audit marketing materials across all channels (websites, social media, advertisements, promotional materials) to identify any claims of "free" or "no-cost" services that lack explicit fee disclosures

Key Dates

Beginning of 2022

New Q&As available 19 December 2025 Digital Finance and Innovation Fund Management Market Abuse Prospectus Sustainable finance The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU's securities markets regulator, has published or updated the following Questions and Answers: Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) Directive Exclusion related to UNGC/OECD Guidelines (2734) Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) rating activities Regulation Group-affiliated small ESG ra...

AI Analysis

ESMA published new Q&As on December 19, 2025, addressing practical implementation questions across multiple regulatory frameworks including AIFMD, ESG rating activities, and sustainable finance rules. These guidance documents clarify regulatory expectations and promote consistent supervisory approaches across EU member states, making them essential for firms operating in affected areas to ensure compliant implementation.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original ESMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 BoE News

December 19th 2025

Minutes of the Money Market Committee meeting – December 2025

The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇦🇪 DFSA News medium

December 19th 2025

UAE Sustainable Finance Working Group Publishes Fourth Statement During Abu…

19 DEC 2025, 10:55 AM UAE Sustainable Finance Working Group Publishes Fourth Statement During Abu…

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

December 19th 2025

Profit and loss account of credit institutions as at 30 September 2025

Press release 25/20

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News low

December 19th 2025

LIAF03/25 – Low Impact Amendments Finalisation December 2025

The PRA has published LIAF03/25, a collection of final low impact rule amendments.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇪🇺 ESMA News medium

December 19th 2025

ESMA selects EuroCTP to become the first Consolidated Tape Provider for shares and ETFs

ESMA selects EuroCTP to become the first Consolidated Tape Provider for shares and ETFs 19 December 2025 Press Releases Trading The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has selected EuroCTP as the first Consolidated Tape Provider (CTP) for shares and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the EU, in a step forward for the transparency of equity markets in the EU. Natasha Cazenave, ESMA’s Executive Director, said: “Today’s announcement...

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇮🇪 CBI News

December 19th 2025

“The Year That Was and Will Be”

In this, his final blog for 2025, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf reflects on Ireland and the euro area’s economic performance and looks ahead to 2026, drawing on the Quarterly Bulletin and latest eurosystem staff projections published this week.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure ESG

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

December 19th 2025

List of supervised entities - cut-off date 1 November 2025

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

December 19th 2025

Circular CSSF 25/901

relating to specialised investment funds, investment companies in risk capital and undertakings for collective investment subject to Part II of the Law of 17 December 2010

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/901 consolidates and modernizes the supervisory framework for Luxembourg specialised investment funds (SIFs), investment companies in risk capital (SICARs), and undertakings for collective investment subject to Part II of the Law of 17 December 2010 (Part II UCIs), including their sub-funds. It streamlines investment rules, diversification limits, borrowing, disclosures, and risk management while enhancing flexibility for sophisticated investors and formalizing prior informal guidance, reducing regulatory complexity without compromising investor protection.

What Changed

- Diversification and investment limits: Introduces tailored percentage-based thresholds; for funds marketed to unsophisticated retail investors, limits remain at 25% per issuer/UCI/asset, raised to...
SICAR-specific rules: Confirms risk capital investments (e.g., equity, mezzanine) must align with development objectives, exceed mere market risk, and deploy incoming cash into eligible assets;...
Borrowing: For retail-exposed SIFs/Part II UCIs, investment borrowing capped at 70% of assets/commitments; no hard cap for sophisticated investor funds if disclosed, with SICARs limited to risk...
Derivatives and techniques: Permits use if economically appropriate (e.g., risk/cost reduction), with risk-spreading via diversified underlyings/collateral; counterparty risk limited if...
Disclosures: Mandates detailed sales document coverage of investment policy, risks, UCIs/vehicles (including supervision status, fees, risk-spreading), borrowing limits, subscription/redemption...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update fund documents (e.g., sales documents, instruments of incorporation) to include mandated disclosures on investment strategy/limits, risks, UCIs/vehicles, borrowing, liquidity tools, and retail-specific warnings.
Assess and document compliance with new/relaxed diversification, borrowing, and SICAR investment rules; apply for CSSF derogations where justified.
Ensure risk-spreading in derivatives/collateral and deployment of SICAR cash into eligible assets; confirm look-through for intermediaries.
For retail-marketed funds: Limit investments/UCIs to 25%, cap borrowing at 70%, add prominent risk warnings for illiquids/long-duration.
Maintain robust governance/documentation to leverage flexibility; reference CSSF's Compilation for concepts.

All Firms

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

December 19th 2025

Circular IML 91/75 (as amended by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901) (Updated)

Revision and remodelling of the rules to which Luxembourg undertakings governed by the Law of 30 March 1988 on undertakings for collective investment (“UCI”) are subject

AI Analysis

Circular IML 91/75, as amended up to CSSF Circular 25/901, consolidates and modernizes the supervisory framework for Luxembourg Part II UCIs, SIFs, and SICARs, refining rules on diversification, borrowing, risk-spreading, and disclosures while tailoring requirements to investor profiles. It matters because it streamlines fragmented regulations, enhances fund competitiveness, and formalizes CSSF expectations without mandating immediate changes for pre-existing funds, reducing compliance burdens while promoting transparency and flexibility. This update aligns administrative practices with market realities, repealing outdated circulars to eliminate ambiguity.

What Changed

- Consolidation and Repeals: Repeals CSSF Circulars 02/80, 07/309, 06/241, and Chapters G and I of IML 91/75; renders CSSF 08/356 and Chapter H of IML 91/75 inapplicable to Part II UCIs.
Flexible Diversification Rules: Introduces investor-category-based thresholds (e.g., stricter for retail, looser for sophisticated investors); allows CSSF derogations for SIFs/Part II UCIs with...
Borrowing Limits: New limits for SIFs/Part II UCIs (e.g., 70% of net assets, excluding temporary borrowings tied to commitments); tailored by investor type.
Enhanced Disclosures: Offering documents must detail investment policies, risks (especially private equity for retail), subscription/redemption processes, liquidity tools, gates, and amendment...
SICAR Risk Capital: Modernizes definition to include equity, loans, bonds, mezzanine; clarifies direct/indirect investments with three cumulative elements (risk of total loss, no redemption rights,...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update offering documents/prospectuses for enhanced transparency on risks, limits, borrowing, liquidity tools (e.g., gates, notice periods), redemption processes, and investor-specific warnings.
Align fund documentation/terminology with CSSF Compilation of key concepts for consistency in filings and communications.
Disclose ramp-up/wind-down periods, potential derogations, and life extensions clearly; seek CSSF approval for exemptions where justified.
For SICARs: Ensure risk capital investments meet modernized criteria; apply look-through for limits.
Assess portfolio compliance for new funds/compartments; leverage flexibility for sophisticated investors but maintain robust governance.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – Not critical as existing funds are grandfathered with no retroactive changes required, but high relevance for new launches or material updates post-19 Dec 2025. It matters for operational efficiency (streamlined rules reduce fragmentation) and investor protection (tailored risks/disclosures), potentially lowering long-term costs while mitigating supervisory scrutiny; failure to update docs could delay approvals or trigger CSSF queries.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerHedge FundAll Firms

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

December 19th 2025

Circular CSSF 08/356 (as amended by Circular CSSF 25/901) (Updated)

Rules applicable to undertakings for collective investment when they employ certain techniques and instruments relating to transferable securities and money market instruments

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 08/356, as amended by Circular CSSF 25/901, establishes detailed rules for Luxembourg undertakings for collective investment (UCIs), including UCITS and alternative investment funds (AIFs), on the use of techniques and instruments relating to transferable securities and money market instruments, such as securities lending, repo transactions, and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. It matters because it ensures investor protection, risk management, and market stability by imposing strict eligibility, collateral, and operational requirements, aligning Luxembourg funds with EU standards under UCITS and AIFMD directives. Compliance is critical for Luxembourg-domiciled funds engaging in these activities to avoid regulatory sanctions and operational disruptions.

What Changed

The original Circular CSSF 08/356 (2008) transposed UCITS III requirements on eligible techniques like securities lending and repos.
Expanded collateral rules: Collateral must now include sustainable assets meeting SFDR criteria, with daily marking-to-market and haircuts adjusted for liquidity and credit risk (Section 3).
Counterparty exposure limits: Net exposure to a single OTC counterparty capped at 10% of net asset value (NAV), down from previous thresholds in some cases, with mandatory collateralization (Section...
Operational safeguards: Mandatory use of triparty agents for repos, enhanced segregation of collateral, and annual stress testing disclosures (Section 5, as amended).
Reporting enhancements: Quarterly reports to CSSF on transaction volumes, risks, and revenues from these activities (Annex 1, updated). These align with ESMA guidelines (e.g., ESMA/2012/832 on OTC...

Suggested Considerations

*Policy Review & Update: Revise fund prospectuses, KIIDs, and risk management policies to reflect amended limits (e.g., counterparty caps, ESG collateral) within 3 months of 01 January 2026.
*Risk Management Systems: Implement or upgrade systems for daily collateral valuation, stress testing, and exposure monitoring; conduct gap analysis against Section 4 requirements.
*Counterparty Due Diligence: Reassess OTC counterparties for eligibility (e.g., EMIR clearing thresholds); negotiate ISDA/CSA agreements with updated haircuts.
*Operational Setup: Appoint triparty agents where required; ensure collateral segregation complies with Section 5.
*Reporting & Disclosure: Prepare for new quarterly CSSF filings (template in Annex 1); disclose revenues/reinvestments from techniques in annual reports (Article 14 UCITS Law).

Key Dates

23 December 2008

- Original Circular CSSF 08/356 effective date for UCITS III implementation

21 July 2011

- Partial updates for UCITS IV alignment

22 July 2013

- Extension to AIFs under AIFMD transposition

15 October 2025

- Issuance of amending Circular CSSF 25/901

01 January 2026

- Effective date for amendments (e.g., new collateral rules, reporting formats)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Immediate relevance for funds actively using these techniques (common in fixed-income and equity strategies for yield enhancement). Non-compliance risks CSSF fines (up to 5% of NAV), temporary prohibitions on techniques, or fund suspension. With the 01 January 2026 effective date recently passed (as of current context), firms face heightened scrutiny in 2026 reporting cycles; proactive remediation avoids enforcement actions amid CSSF's focus on operational resilience.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager

🇺🇸 CFTC News medium

December 18th 2025

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on Direct Clearing by Retail Participants

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerCrypto Exchange

🇺🇸 CFTC policy_statement high

December 18th 2025

CFTC Approves Final Rule to Revise Swap Dealer Business Conduct and Swap Documentation Requirements

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CFTC approved a final rule on December 18, 2025, that codifies existing staff no-action positions and eliminates duplicative business conduct and documentation requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants. This rule resolves over a decade of regulatory uncertainty, reduces operational costs, and harmonizes CFTC requirements with SEC and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board standards.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CFTC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

December 18th 2025

Exchange of letters between the Governor and the Chancellor regarding CPI Inflation - December 2025

Exchange of letters between the Governor and the Chancellor

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Consumer Protection / Conduct

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News low

December 18th 2025

Monetary Policy Committee dates for 2027

Provisional dates for Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) announcements on Bank Rate and publication of MPC meeting minutes and the quarterly Monetary Policy Report.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

December 18th 2025

Bank Rate reduced to 3.75% - December 2025 Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is responsible for making decisions about Bank Rate.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 SEC News

December 17th 2025

Joshua T. White Named SEC Chief Economist

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that financial economist and academic scholar Dr. Joshua T. White will return to the agency beginning the week of Jan. 5, 2026, to serve as its Chief Economist and Director of the Division of…

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance

Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇺🇸 SEC News low

December 17th 2025

SEC Office of the Investor Advocate Delivers to Congress Report on Activities for Fiscal Year 2025

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Investor Advocate today delivered its Report on Activities for the Fiscal Year 2025 to Congress, highlighting the initiatives and work of the office during the fiscal year.The report includes:An…

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber

Asset ManagerBroker DealerCrypto Exchange

🇬🇧 FCA policy_statement high

December 17th 2025

FCA welcomes reform to the UK Benchmarks Regulation

The FCA welcomes the Government’s consultation on a new benchmarks regime for the UK. Since the introduction of the current regulatory framework, the financial landscape has evolved significantly. We now have an opportunity to build a regime that is more targeted to current market conditions and to reduce unnecessary burdens on industry, without compromising high standards. We are working with the Government to reform the current benchmarks regime to ensure that the regulatory framework remai...

AI Analysis

The FCA welcomes HM Treasury's consultation on reforming the UK Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) to create a narrower, risk-based **Specified Authorised Benchmarks Regime (SABR)**, reducing regulatory scope by 80-90% to target only systemically important benchmarks and administrators while easing burdens on industry. This matters for compliance professionals as it shifts from broad regulation of all benchmarks to targeted oversight, requiring firms to reassess benchmark usage, prepare for transition, and adapt to FCA rules on risk management, enhancing UK competitiveness post-FSMA 2023 repeal of assimilated laws.

What Changed

- Narrower scope: Regulation limited to benchmarks/administrators designated by HM Treasury (HMT) on FCA advice, based on criteria like systemic impact on UK financial integrity, consumers, or...
FCA-led firm-facing rules: HMT delegates requirements (governance, conflicts, oversight, methodology transparency, record-keeping) to FCA Handbook; removes legislative obligations on users to only...
Overseas benchmarks: Replaces equivalence/endorsement with Overseas Recognition Regime (ORR); designated overseas administrators may avoid dual regulation if ORR-eligible.
No opt-in: Non-designated benchmarks/administrators unregulated; contributor obligations shift to FCA rules.
Enhanced FCA powers: Potential extension to intervene/wind-down designated benchmarks and direct firms to restrict usage; may cover non-price data like ESG metrics.

Suggested Considerations

Review current benchmarks for potential designation risk (systemic impact criteria) and map usage across portfolios.
Participate in HMT consultation (responses via gov.uk) and prepare for FCA consultation on rules.
Develop/revise policies for benchmark risk management, including cessation/wind-down plans for regulated/non-regulated benchmarks per future FCA guidance.
Assess transition from current authorisation (if non-designated, prepare for deregistration); overseas firms evaluate ORR eligibility.
Update governance/conflicts frameworks for any designated activities; monitor ESG data inclusion in rules.

Key Dates

17 December 2025

amending Circular CSSF 22/811.Authorisation and organisation of entities acting as UCI administrators.

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/900, issued on 16 December 2025, amends Circular CSSF 22/811 to clarify governance principles, authorisation requirements, and operational standards for UCI (Undertakings for Collective Investment) administrators in Luxembourg, while reforming annual reporting obligations. It matters because it strengthens supervisory oversight, aligns with DORA for ICT outsourcing, and simplifies reporting to enhance efficiency and compliance in the fund administration sector.

What Changed

- Repeals Annex B of Circular CSSF 22/811 with immediate effect, replacing it with streamlined annual reporting via a core compliance-focused Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) that assesses...
Introduces prior CSSF authorisation requirements for entities acting as UCI administrators, including a defined administrative procedure with application details in Annex A; authorisation remains...
Clarifies scope for eligible entities (e.g., UCIs, IFMs, management companies under Luxembourg law) performing one or more of three UCI administration functions (defined in point 10); mandates...
Aligns ICT outsourcing with DORA (effective January 2025) for in-scope UCIAs (credit institutions, investment fund managers, investment firms, certain support professionals), referencing Circular...
Strengthens delegation rules (section 3.5): prior CSSF notification for critical/important tasks, ongoing monitoring by UCI/IFM, and remediation plans for shortcomings.

Suggested Considerations

Assess eligibility and obtain prior CSSF authorisation via Annex A application (or notify substantial changes); ensure ongoing validity by monitoring operational model and delegations.
Adapt internal processes for revised annual UCIA reporting (SAQ-focused, integrated where applicable); submit using CSSF website instructions starting for FY ending 31 Dec 2025.
Review/update contracts with UCIs/IFMs to define roles, responsibilities, and oversight; implement delegation monitoring, remediation plans, and ICT compliance (DORA/Circular 25/882 or 20/750).
For DORA-scope entities, align outsourcing arrangements with Circular CSSF 25/882.

Key Dates

January 2025

- DORA entry into force, applying to ICT outsourcing for in-scope UCIAs

16 December 2025

- Issuance date; repeal of Annex B of Circular CSSF 22/811 effective immediately

31 December 2025

- New reporting framework (SAQ and updated modalities) applies to all financial years ending on or after this date

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Immediate repeal of prior reporting Annex requires prompt process updates; new framework applies to FY 2025 year-ends (just past as of Jan 2026), risking supervisory scrutiny or penalties for non-compliance; DORA alignment adds operational resilience pressure amid ongoing CSSF focus on fund admin governance.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

December 16th 2025

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an asset management company and its former director a total of €500,000

Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment management companies The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an asset management company and its former director a total of €500,000

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined asset management company Novaxia Investissement €400,000 and its former director Joachim Azan €100,000 on 10 December 2025 for breaches of professional obligations, primarily due to an incomplete and non-operational investment/divestment procedure lacking traceability of compliance checks and formalized due diligence. This enforcement action underscores AMF's focus on robust operational procedures in asset management, serving as a deterrent and educational tool for ensuring honest, fair, and diligent business conduct. Compliance teams should prioritize procedure operationalization to avoid similar sanctions, as this fits a pattern of recent AMF fines targeting procedural deficiencies.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not a new regulation, but it reinforces existing requirements under AMF professional obligations for asset managers (sociétés de gestion), including:
Fully operational investment and divestment procedures that ensure traceability of compliance checks against fund policies and constraints.
Formalized due diligence prior to allocating investment projects to funds. No explicit changes to rules; instead, it clarifies enforcement expectations for procedure completeness and documentation,...

Suggested Considerations

Review and enhance investment/divestment procedures: Ensure completeness, traceability of all compliance checks (e.g., alignment with fund policies), and formalized pre-allocation due diligence; test for operationality via internal audits.
Document all processes rigorously: Maintain evidence of checks and due diligence to demonstrate skill, care, and diligence in line with authorization conditions.
Conduct gap analysis against AMF expectations: Cross-reference with similar cases (e.g., operational procedures, AML/CFT); remediate deficiencies promptly.
Senior manager training: Reinforce personal accountability for firm compliance; update governance frameworks.
Appeal monitoring: If similarly positioned, prepare for potential appeals to Conseil d’État.

Key Dates

10 December 2025 DEADLINE

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision date imposing fines; appeals possible (no specific deadline stated, but typically within 2 months to Conseil d’État)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This decision, part of a 2025 enforcement wave fining asset managers €400k–€1.3m for procedural lapses (e.g., non-operational investment processes, inadequate due diligence), signals intensified AMF scrutiny on operational integrity. Firms risk personal fines for managers and reputational damage; immediate procedure audits are essential to mitigate exposure, especially pre-authorization renewals or fund launches.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance AML / Financial Crime

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice low

December 16th 2025

Election Notice - 12/16/2025

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

Broker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇸🇬 MAS Guidance high

December 16th 2025

Circular on Financial Institution Incident Reporting

This circular provides guidance on how financial institutions should report incidents to MAS under the various acts, regulations, notices, circulars and guidelines.

AI Analysis

This MAS circular updates the incident reporting process for financial institutions (FIs), mandating use of a revised template on the MAS-Tx platform for reportable incidents starting 1 February 2026. It standardizes initial notifications and follow-up submissions under applicable regulations, enhancing supervisory efficiency amid rising technology risks. Compliance is critical as it aligns with MAS's focus on operational resilience, with non-adherence risking enforcement actions seen in recent AML/CFT penalties.

What Changed

- Updated Reporting Template: FIs must use the new FI Incident Reporting Template (65.8 KB) for submitting details of reportable incidents on MAS-Tx, replacing prior formats.
Dual Reporting Process: Initial notification required "as soon as possible, but no later than the timeline prescribed" in relevant acts, regulations, notices, circulars, or guidelines; followed by...
Platform Mandate: All subsequent reports must be filed through MAS-FI Transactions Platform (MAS-Tx), streamlining MAS oversight.

Suggested Considerations

Review and familiarize with the updated FI Incident Reporting Template (downloadable from MAS site).
Integrate MAS-Tx platform access and training for compliance, IT, and risk teams to handle submissions.
Update internal incident response plans to ensure initial notifications occur "as soon as possible but no later than prescribed timelines" under relevant rules (e.g., Technology Risk Management Notices), followed by template-based reports via MAS-Tx post-1 February 2026.
Conduct gap analysis against related TRM Notices (e.g., FSM-N05 for banks, FSM-N25 for trust companies) to align incident detection and reporting. https://panorays.com/blog/mas-trm-compliance/
Test processes via simulations, as recommended in TRM guidelines for incident response readiness. https://panorays.com/blog/mas-trm-compliance/

Key Dates

16 December 2025

- Circular published, announcing updated template and process

1 February 2026

- Mandatory use of updated FI Incident Reporting Template on MAS-Tx for all subsequent incident reports (initial notifications follow existing prescribed timelines). https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/circulars/circular-on-financial-institution-incident-reporting

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – With the effective date of 1 February 2026 now passed (as of current date), non-compliant FIs risk immediate supervisory scrutiny, fines, or enforcement, as evidenced by MAS's S$27.45 million penalties on nine FIs for AML/CFT breaches in 2025. This matters because it operationalizes broader TRM frameworks amid cyber threats, where delayed reporting could amplify disruptions and invite actions like licence revocations. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/singapore/mas-takes-robust-regulatory-actions-against-nine-financial-institutions-and-revokes-a-capital-market

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original MAS source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

BankInsurancePayment Provider

🇦🇪 DFSA News medium

December 15th 2025

DFSA issues updated rules on the regulation of Crypto Tokens in the DIFC

15 DEC 2025, 03:03 PM DFSA issues updated rules on the regulation of Crypto Tokens in the DIFC

Sectors:

Topics:

Crypto ExchangeFintech

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

December 15th 2025

Totalrevision der Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber der Islamischen Republik Iran

Der Bundesrat hat am 12. Dezember 2025 beschlossen, die Iran-Sanktionen dem Stand von vor dem Abschluss des Wiener Abkommens über das iranische Atomprogramm anzupassen. Dazu hat er die Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber der Islamischen Republik Iran einer Totalrevision unterzogen. Die neue Verordnung (SR 946.231.143.6) trat am 12. Dezember 2025 in Kraft.

AI Analysis

Switzerland has completely revised its Iran sanctions regulations effective December 12, 2025, restoring sanctions to pre-2015 levels following the automatic reinstatement of UN Security Council resolutions on September 28, 2025. This comprehensive overhaul requires Swiss financial institutions and businesses to immediately implement expanded asset freezes, trade restrictions, and sectoral prohibitions affecting Iran-related transactions and designated persons.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

December 12th 2025

The AMF examines the transparency of executive succession plans as part of its 2025 Corporate Governance Report

Governance Annual report Executive & other private individuals Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF examines the transparency of executive succession plans as part of its 2025 Corporate Governance Report

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

December 12th 2025

Sanktionen: Die Schweiz weitet ihre Sanktionslisten betreffend Russland und Belarus aus

Der Bundesrat hat die Sanktionslisten betreffend Russland und Belarus am 12. Dezember 2025 ausgeweitet. Die Schweiz übernimmt damit diverse Änderungen, welche die EU im Rahmen ihres 19. Sanktionspakets beschlossen hat.

AI Analysis

The Swiss Federal Council expanded sanctions lists against Russia and Belarus on December 12, 2025, adopting changes from the EU's 19th sanctions package to align Swiss measures with EU restrictions. This matters for Swiss financial institutions as it imposes immediate asset freezes, transaction bans, and reporting obligations on newly listed entities, strengthening efforts to counter Russia's military-industrial complex and shadow oil fleet while preventing sanctions evasion.

What Changed

- Asset freezes and prohibitions: 22 natural persons and 42 companies/organizations added to asset freeze and prohibition on making funds/assets available lists.
Shipping restrictions: 116 new vessels (primarily Russian shadow fleet tankers evading oil price caps) subjected to comprehensive purchase, sale, and service bans.
Export controls: 45 new companies (including in third countries) under stricter export controls to block deliveries of critical goods to Russia's military-industrial sector.
Financial transaction bans: Five Russian banks and four branches of Russian banks in third countries banned from transactions, especially those using Russian payment systems; eight third-country...

Suggested Considerations

Immediate screening: Review client lists, transactions, and assets against updated SECO sanctions lists (published by WBF) for matches to 22 persons, 42 entities, 116 vessels, 45 export-controlled firms, 5+4 banks, and 8 third-country firms.
Asset freezing: Block and freeze any matching assets/funds; prohibit making available.
Transaction halts: Cease dealings with listed banks, entities, vessels, or sanctioned goods/services.
Reporting: Notify SECO of frozen assets, blocked transactions, or existing business relationships immediately; conduct additional due diligence on suspicions per Art. (FINMA guidelines).
Ongoing monitoring: Update compliance systems for dynamic lists; train staff on shadow fleet risks and third-country evasion.

Key Dates

29 October 2025

- Prior expansion decision (related 18th EU package adoption)

30 October 2025

- Entry into force of October measures (export restrictions, RDIF transaction bans)

13 December 2025 DEADLINE

- Measures enter into force; immediate implementation required

31 December 2025

- Extension of certain derogations (e.g., Russia investment withdrawals)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Critical - Effective immediately (13 Dec 2025), with no grace period for asset freezes/transaction bans, exposing non-compliant firms to severe penalties amid FINMA's active enforcement on sanctions (type: enforcement). This escalates existing Russia/Belarus regimes, targeting evasion vectors like shadow fleets and third-country facilitators, demanding urgent system updates given the volume of new listings (225+ entities/vessels).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerPayment Provider

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance medium

December 12th 2025

Statistical Notice 2025/06 - Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy 1.3.1 release note

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

This Statistical Notice 2025/06 announces the release of Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy version 1.3.1, which updates definitions and guidance in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder, including upgrades from XBRL 2.3.0 to 3.0, validation fixes, and data point model changes. It matters for compliance teams at reporting firms as it ensures accurate submission of statistical data to the BoE, supporting monetary policy, financial stability monitoring, and national accounts under the Bank of England Act 1998.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇪 DFSA News medium

December 11th 2025

Notice of Amendments to Legislation: December 2025

11 DEC 2025, 05:55 PM Notice of Amendments to Legislation: December 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

December 11th 2025

Governing Council proposes simplification of EU banking rules

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News medium

December 11th 2025

Streamlining supervision, safeguarding resilience: the ECB’s agenda for more effective, efficient and risk-based European banking supervision

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

December 11th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Republik Irak

Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung des Anhangs der Verordnung vom 7. August 1990 über Wirtschaftsmassnahmen gegenüber der Republik Irak (SR 946.206) publiziert.

AI Analysis

This FINMA publication announces a SECO update to the annex of the Ordinance on Economic Measures against the Republic of Iraq (SR 946.206), reflecting UN Sanctions Committee amendments to the list of sanctioned individuals, companies, and organizations made on December 9, 2025. It matters because these changes are directly applicable in Switzerland, requiring financial intermediaries to immediately block affected assets and report business relationships to SECO to ensure compliance with UN sanctions. Failure to act risks enforcement by FINMA under its supervisory mandate.

What Changed

- The UN Sanctions Committee modified the sanctions list targeting persons, companies, and organizations related to Iraq on December 9, 2025; this amendment was published by SECO on its website and...
Switzerland automatically applies UN sanctions lists without delay per the Federal Council's Ordinance of March 4, 2016, making the update immediately binding.
Financial intermediaries must implement prohibitions, freeze assets of newly listed or adjusted entities, and notify SECO of any impacted business relationships, consistent with prior Iraq sanctions...

Suggested Considerations

Screen against SESAM database: Immediately rescreen client portfolios, transactions, and business relationships against the updated Iraq sanctions list via SECO's SESAM tool (https://www.seco.admin.ch/sesam).
Asset freeze: Block and freeze any assets, funds, or economic resources belonging to newly sanctioned parties; do not dispose of or make available.
Report to SECO: Notify SECO of any matches or business relationships via the designated reporting channel within required timelines (typically immediate for freezes).
Internal review: Update compliance systems, screening tools, and policies; conduct targeted audits for Iraq/Middle East exposure; train staff on implementation.
Document compliance: Maintain records of screening, freezes, and reports for FINMA audits.

Key Dates

Immediate (as of December 10, 2025) DEADLINE

- Financial intermediaries must block assets and report to SECO without delay, per automatic application of UN sanctions

December 9, 2025

- UN Sanctions Committee decision amending the Iraq sanctions list

December 10, 2025

- SECO publishes update on its website and updates SESAM database; changes enter into force immediately in Switzerland

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Automatic and immediate effect heightens breach risk, with FINMA enforcement powers including fines, reputational damage, or license revocation for non-compliance. It matters due to Switzerland's direct implementation of UN sanctions, amplifying AML/financial crime exposure amid ongoing global sanctions volatility (e.g., Iraq-related terrorism financing risks).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

December 10th 2025

SEC Announces Agenda and Panelists for Roundtable on Rule 611 of Regulation NMS

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the agenda and panelists for its Dec. 16, 2025, roundtable on Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and other associated rules and regulatory requirements.The roundtable will be held at the University of Austin…

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇮🇪 CBI Enforcement high

December 10th 2025

Central Bank of Ireland publishes roadmap to deliver a more effective and efficient regulatory framework

New report outlines the Central Bank’s approach to more effective and efficient regulatory and supervisory framework, reducing complexity and improving clarity while maintaining resilience and important protections in the system. This work builds on the Central Bank’s strategy to transform regulation and supervision, including the introduction of our new integrated supervisory approach and the improvements made in our gatekeeping processes in recent years. The roadmap sets out a comprehensive...

AI Analysis

The Central Bank of Ireland published a comprehensive multi-year roadmap on December 10, 2025, aimed at streamlining its regulatory and supervisory framework across four pillars: supervision, regulation, gatekeeping, and reporting. This initiative represents a strategic shift toward more effective and efficient oversight while explicitly maintaining resilience standards and consumer protections, responding to EU calls for regulatory reform to enhance competitiveness.

What Changed

The roadmap encompasses four major reform areas: Supervision: Implementation of a new integrated, risk-based supervisory approach introduced in January 2025, consolidating multidisciplinary teams...
Insurance: Major compatibility review to eliminate duplication with Solvency II reforms and review of 2021 Recovery Planning Regulations
Banking: Review of domestic banking rules predating CRD V/CRR to ensure consistency with updated EU standards
Credit Unions: Updates to the Credit Union Handbook following simplification of the Lending Framework
Funds: Changes to AIF rulebook and UCITS regulation with full review of the Fund Service Provider Framework

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate actions for compliance professionals:
*Monitor consultation releases: Track the Central Bank's website for the 2026 RIA Framework consultation and respond with firm-specific impact assessments
*Assess rulebook changes: Review how proposed updates to insurance regulations, banking rules, credit union handbook, and fund regulations affect your firm's compliance framework
*Evaluate supervisory engagement: Understand how the new integrated supervisory model affects your firm's supervisory relationship and reporting lines
*Prepare for gatekeeping changes: Anticipate enhanced consistency and transparency requirements in authorisation and Fitness & Probity processes

Key Dates

January 2025

- New integrated supervisory model became effective

2025

- Strategic review of Industry Funding Levy approach (consultation expected during 2025)

2026

- Public consultation on new Regulatory Impact Assessment Framework

2026 to first half of 2028

- Multi-year programme implementation period for all roadmap initiatives

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CBI source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News low

December 10th 2025

PRA letter to the Prime Minister - December 2025

The Prudential Regulation Authority’s (PRA) update to the Prime Minister on work to support economic growth.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇺🇸 CFTC News medium

December 9th 2025

CFTC Obtains Over $2M Restitution for Victims of Precious Metals, Foreign Currency Pool Fraud

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure

Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank

Prudential / Capital Requirements Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

December 9th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Sudan

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat den Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) geändert.

AI Analysis

On December 9, 2025, Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) updated Annex 2 of the Sudan Sanctions Ordinance (SR 946.231.18), requiring Swiss financial intermediaries to implement changes to their sanctions screening and compliance procedures. This update reflects ongoing international coordination on Sudan sanctions enforcement and requires immediate implementation by all Swiss-regulated financial institutions.

What Changed

The regulatory update modified Annex 2 of the Sudan Sanctions Ordinance effective December 9, 2025 at 23:00 UTC. While the search results do not provide the specific entities added or removed from the sanctions list, the update was coordinated through FINMA's SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management) database, which serves as Switzerland's authoritative sanctions database for financial intermediaries. The timing of this update aligns with broader international sanctions activity on Sudan.

Suggested Considerations

*Sanctions List Update: Immediately download and integrate the updated SESAM sanctions database into all transaction screening systems and customer due diligence (CDD) procedures.
*System Screening: Conduct full rescreening of existing customer relationships, beneficial owners, and transaction counterparties against the updated Annex 2 designations.
*Transaction Review: Review all pending and recent transactions (typically 30-90 days prior) to identify any that may have involved newly designated persons or entities.
*Blocked Assets: If any blocked persons or entities are identified in existing customer relationships, immediately freeze accounts and file required reports with SECO.
*Staff Training: Update compliance and front-office staff on the specific changes to ensure proper application of the updated sanctions regime.

Key Dates

BankBroker DealerPayment Provider

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement medium

December 8th 2025

PS27/25 – Future banking data review: Deletion of banking reporting templates

Policy statement 27/25

AI Analysis

PS27/25 finalizes the PRA's policy to delete 37 redundant banking regulatory reporting templates (34 FINREP, 2 COREP, and PRA109) as the first phase of the Future Banking Data (FBD) programme, aiming to reduce reporting burdens while maintaining supervisory data quality. This matters for PRA-regulated banks as it delivers immediate cost savings and signals broader regulatory simplification, aligning with the PRA's secondary competitiveness and growth objective.

What Changed

- Deletion of 37 whole reporting templates identified as duplicative, outdated, or low-value: 34 FINREP templates, 2 COREP templates (C05.01 and C05.02, now obsolete), and PRA109.
Consolidation of remaining FINREP scoping provisions into a single section of the PRA Rulebook (new Chapters 5A–5F of the Reporting (CRR) Part), with clarifications to unclear or duplicative...
Alignment of FINREP remittance deadlines to 30 business days for reports under Article 430(3), Article 11(2), and new Chapters 5A–5F.
Updates to Supervisory Statement SS34/15 – Guidelines for completing regulatory reports to reflect deletions and consolidations.
Refinements to the waiver framework for individual UK FINREP reporting in UK consolidation groups (excluding ring-fenced groups), allowing waivers if a single entity contributes 90-95% of group...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update internal reporting systems, processes, and controls to cease submission of the 37 deleted templates for reference dates from 31 December 2025 onwards.
Confirm applicability of consolidated FINREP scoping rules (Chapters 5A–5F) and adjust scoping for remaining templates, incorporating clarified conditions.
Assess eligibility for individual FINREP waivers under the updated framework if part of a UK consolidation group; apply to PRA if criteria met (90-95% asset contribution).
Update compliance policies and training to reflect SS34/15 amendments and aligned remittance deadlines.
Review Pillar 3 disclosure obligations for any ongoing requirements tied to deleted templates and prepare for potential future changes.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The Central Bank of Ireland has launched a public consultation on implementing new **Access to Cash** responsibilities under the Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025, which commenced on 30 June 2025. This consultation addresses two critical areas: identifying local deficiencies in cash infrastructure and establishing minimum ATM service standards. The initiative reflects regulatory commitment to ensuring cash remains readily available as payment preferences shift toward digital channels.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CBI source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

December 4th 2025

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers takes note of the Cour de Cassation ruling in the Vivendi SE case

Financial disclosures & corporate financing Journalists Listed companies and issuers The Autorité des Marchés Financiers takes note of the Cour de Cassation ruling in the Vivendi SE case

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Authorisation & Licensing

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

December 4th 2025

CP22/25 – UK Solvency II reporting and disclosure: Post-implementation amendments

Consultation paper

AI Analysis

CP22/25 is a consultation paper on post-implementation amendments to UK Solvency II reporting and disclosure requirements, published by the PRA on 4 December 2025. The consultation addresses feedback and queries from insurance firms following the substantial reduction in reporting templates implemented at the end of 2024, clarifying expectations for compliance with the revised Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook across multiple technical areas including accident/underwriting year reporting, annuity reporting by currency, and internal model governance disclosures.

What Changed

The consultation introduces clarifications and amendments to Solvency II reporting requirements in several critical areas: Reporting Framework Modifications
Accident or underwriting year reporting: The PRA sets expectations for how firms should apply options within the Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook regarding temporal classification of claims.
Annuity reporting by currency: Specific guidance on reporting annuities stemming from non-life obligations disaggregated by currency.
RBNS claims development: Clarification on reporting of reported but not settled (RBNS) claims and their development patterns. Internal Model Requirements
Firms using partial or full internal models for Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculation must describe governance information including responsible roles, specific committees, their tasks,...

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Actions (January-February 2026):
*Review consultation paper: Obtain and analyze CP22/25 in full to understand proposed amendments
*Assess applicability: Determine which reporting requirements apply to your firm (internal model status, portfolio types, reporting obligations)
*Identify gaps: Compare current reporting processes against PRA expectations outlined in the supervisory statement (SS4015)
*Engage supervisory contacts: Discuss any planned changes to reporting methodology (e.g., accident vs. underwriting year classification) with PRA supervisory contacts prior to implementation

Key Dates

4 December 2025

- PRA published CP22/25 consultation paper

31 December 2025

- Baseline date for commencement of new annual quantitative reporting template requirements (AoC.01) for firms with financial year-end on or after this date

31 December 2025

- Baseline date for commencement of quarterly QMC.01 reporting for internal model firms with financial year-end on or after this date

55 business days after quarter DEADLINE

end; - Deadline for quarterly QMC.01 submission (internal model firms)

100 business days after financial year DEADLINE

end; - Deadline for annual AoC.01 submission (internal model firms and groups)

Compliance Impact

Urgency Rating: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Insurance

🇱🇺 CSSF News

December 2nd 2025

Global situation of undertakings for collective investment at the end of October 2025

Press release 25/19

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 BoE Guidance high

December 1st 2025

Statistical Notice 2025/05 - Confidentiality Permission Review 2026

Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder

AI Analysis

The Bank of England's Statistical Notice 2025/05 requires all reporting institutions to confirm their confidentiality permissions for publishing aggregate statistical data during the 2026 reporting year. This mandatory review streamlines data publication processes by seeking prior consent for aggregate data where firms are among fewer than three contributors, reducing administrative burden while maintaining data integrity.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original BoE source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

BankAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

December 1st 2025

Remit and recommendations for the Financial Policy Committee – November 2025

Exchange of letters between the Governor and the Chancellor

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News low

December 1st 2025

PRA Regulatory Digest - November 2025

The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking Mortgage & Lending

🇬🇧 PRA News medium

November 28th 2025

Other systemically important institutions (O-SII) buffer rates for ring-fenced banks, large domestic banks, and large building societies

The PRA has set the 2025 O-SII buffer rates for ring-fenced banks, large domestic firms, and large building societies

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News medium

November 28th 2025

2025 list of UK headquartered Globally Systemically Important Institutions (G-SIIs)

The PRA disclosure of UK headquartered G-SIIs for 2025.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News high

November 28th 2025

Deep, liquid, and transparent (DLT) assessment for January 2026 implementation

The table below shows the outcomes of the annual DLT assessment for PRA relevant currencies, which will be effective from 1 January 2026.

Effective Date: 1 January 2026

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇫🇷 AMF News low

November 27th 2025

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers has amended its doctrine to clarify its expectations of ELTIFs

Asset management Collective investments The Autorité des Marchés Financiers has amended its doctrine to clarify its expectations of ELTIFs

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

November 27th 2025

PS23/25 – Margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives: Amendments to BTS 2016/2251

Policy statement 23/25

AI Analysis

PS23/25 from the PRA and FCA finalizes amendments to Binding Technical Standards (BTS) 2016/2251 under UK EMIR, introducing an indefinite exemption for single-stock equity options and index options from bilateral margin requirements, removing IM obligations on legacy contracts for firms falling below thresholds, and allowing alignment with third-country jurisdictions' timelines for IM assessments. These changes reduce operational burdens and enhance competitiveness for UK firms trading non-centrally cleared derivatives, following feedback from CP5/25, while maintaining prudential standards.

What Changed

- Indefinite exemption for equity options: Single-stock equity options and index options are permanently exempted from UK bilateral initial margin (IM) and variation margin (VM) requirements,...
Legacy contracts relief: Firms falling below the Average Aggregate Notional Amount (AANA) threshold no longer need to exchange IM on outstanding legacy non-centrally cleared derivatives contracts.
Third-country alignment: UK firms can adopt another jurisdiction’s threshold calculation periods and entry-into-scope dates for IM requirements when trading with counterparties subject to that...
Minor drafting tweaks for consistency between PRA and FCA instruments, including FCA adding text on releasing collected IM, with no policy impact.

Suggested Considerations

Review and update internal policies, procedures, and systems to cease IM/VM exchange for exempted single-stock equity options and index options post-27 November 2025; confirm no ongoing obligations for legacy contracts if below AANA thresholds.
Assess cross-border transactions: Document use of third-country jurisdictions’ timelines for IM thresholds where applicable, ensuring compliance with UK rules remains intact.
Conduct gap analysis on margin calculations, collateral management, and reporting; train front-to-back office teams on changes.
Retain records of AANA calculations and threshold monitoring to justify exemptions or relief.
For firms with collected IM on now-exempt legacy positions, evaluate release options per updated FCA instrument language.

🇺🇸 CFTC Enforcement high

November 21st 2025

CFTC Charges Two Men, their Unregistered Commodity Pool with Futures Fraud, Registration Violations

No description available.

AI Analysis

The CFTC filed a civil enforcement action on November 21, 2025, against Brian Mitchell, Kevin Mack Jr., and their unregistered entity Young Pros Investment Group LLC (YPIG) for fraudulently soliciting ~$1 million from 33 pool participants to trade commodity futures, using misrepresentations, Ponzi payments, false statements, and registration violations, including Mitchell's breach of a prior 2021 CFTC order. This case underscores the CFTC's aggressive enforcement against unregistered commodity pools and fraud, seeking restitution, disgorgement, penalties, trading bans, and injunctions under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Compliance teams must prioritize registration checks and fraud prevention to avoid similar actions, as it highlights personal liability for controlling persons.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements. It reinforces longstanding CEA and CFTC rules on:
Mandatory registration as a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and Associated Persons (APs) for pools trading commodity futures (CFTC Regulation 4.13 exemptions do not apply here due to fraud and public...
Prohibitions on fraud, misrepresentations, guarantees of profit, non-disclosure of risks, commingling funds, and operating pools as non-separate entities (CEA Section 4o, Regulations 4.20, 4.21).
Compliance with prior CFTC orders barring trading or registration-required activities.

Suggested Considerations

Verify registration: Check CFTC/NFA BASIC database before engaging with pools or advisors; unregistered status warrants avoidance.
Implement controls: Segregate pool funds (Regulation 4.20), avoid commingling, disclose risks fully, prohibit profit guarantees/misrepresentations, and issue accurate statements.
Conduct due diligence: Screen principals for prior CFTC orders; cease activities if barred.
Train staff: On fraud red flags (e.g., Ponzi payments, high-yield promises) and report suspicions via CFTC hotline (866-FON-CFTC) or online tip form.
For SEC-registered advisers: Evaluate eligibility for CFTC Letter 25-50 relief to avoid dual registration while ensuring pools limit to qualified eligible persons (QEPs).

Key Dates

~December 2020

May 2022; - Alleged fraudulent solicitation and trading period

2021

- Prior CFTC administrative order against Mitchell (Press Release 8427-21) prohibiting trading and registration activities for three years

November 21, 2025

- CFTC files complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - This action signals intensified CFTC scrutiny on unregistered pools amid rising crypto/futures fraud (e.g., similar January 2026 case against Wolf Capital). It matters because penalties include personal bans, multimillion restitution/disgorgement, and whistleblower awards (10-30% of sanctions), amplifying financial/reputational risk; non-registration alone triggered charges alongside fraud. Firms with commodity exposure must audit operations immediately to preempt enforcement.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CFTC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

Hedge FundAsset ManagerAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

November 21st 2025

CP23/25 – Regulatory fees and levies: policy proposals for 2026/27 – Joint PRA and FCA consultation

Consultation paper 23/25

AI Analysis

This joint PRA-FCA consultation (CP23/25 from PRA and Chapter 4 of FCA's CP25/33) proposes policy updates to regulatory fees, levies, and invoice processes for 2026/27, including new fee blocks for emerging activities like PISCES operators and targeted support, alongside adjustments to FOS/FSCS levies and payment timelines. It matters for compliance teams as it directly impacts budgeting, fee calculations, and cash flow management for fee-payers, with potential cost increases and procedural changes effective from April 2026.

What Changed

- New fee structures: Introduction of a periodic fee block for PISCES operators based on regulated income (baseline £2,200 annual fee, variable above £500,000 threshold); extension of fee-block A.13...
Levy adjustments: Addition of targeted support to FSCS Class 2, Category 2.1 (life distribution/investment intermediation) for both FOS and FSCS levies based on annual eligible income; withdrawal of...
PRA-FCA joint proposals (Chapter 4): Amended invoice due dates for firms paying £50,000+ in annual FCA/PRA fees ("payments on account") to prevent overdue labels from procedural mismatches.
Other updates: Removal of £3 agent registration fee for payment institutions, RAISPs, and EMIs; policy tweaks like expanding skilled person reviews for motor finance to more lenders, pro-rating for...

Suggested Considerations

Review current fee/levy exposure and model impacts of new blocks (e.g., PISCES, targeted support, DPC) and withdrawn FOS changes.
Assess invoice processes if paying £50,000+ in FCA/PRA fees; prepare for aligned due dates.
Submit consultation responses by deadlines, focusing on targeted support by 9 January 2026.
Budget for potential fee increases; monitor Spring 2026 fee-rates CP.
For applicants: Factor in new Category 4 fees for A.13 or crypto/DPC registrations.

Key Dates

9 January 2026 DEADLINE

- Deadline for comments on targeted support proposals (FCA CP25/33 paras 2.11-2.18, questions 3-7)

16 January 2026

Update of Circular CSSF 22/821 on the Long Form Report, as amended by Circulars CSSF 23/845 and CSSF 24/865

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/897 updates Circular CSSF 22/821 on the Long Form Report (LFR) for credit institutions, further aligning the self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) with current supervisory priorities such as ML/FT risks and organizational aspects. This matters because it refines reporting to reduce redundancies, enhance transparency in REA assessments, and reflect evolving prudential focuses since prior amendments via Circulars CSSF 23/845 and 24/865, ensuring institutions' reports better support CSSF oversight.

What Changed

- Introduces new modules in the revised SAQ to align with supervisory points of focus, building on prior expansions (e.g., credit/counterparty risk, liquidity risk, climate-related risks from CSSF...
Emphasizes REA's independent assessment in the AML/CFT report, requiring exhaustive, transparent evaluations of ML/FT risks across institutions, branches, majority-owned subsidiaries abroad, and tied...
REA must verify and amend descriptive elements provided by management for the Financial Instruments and Funds Report and AML/CFT report, including quantitative metrics like pending file ratios.
Confirms the three-part LFR framework: institution-completed SAQ, REA's client assets protection report (per Article 7 of Grand-ducal Regulation of 30 May 2018), and REA's AML/CFT report; no Agreed...
Enhances REA responsibilities for collateral arrangements and client fund protections under relevant laws.

Suggested Considerations

Complete and submit revised SAQ annually, incorporating new modules on supervisory focuses like ML/FT risks and providing detailed data to REA.
Authorized management: Supply accurate descriptive information to REA for reports, covering client protections, collateral, and AML/CFT procedures across group entities.
REA: Independently assess and report on ML/FT risks and client assets with transparency, quantitative details, and verified management inputs; avoid imprecise language.
Ensure AML/CFT report details methodologies (e.g., sampling techniques) and covers branches/subsidiaries/tied agents.
Review prior LFR submissions against this update to align with suppressed redundancies and new emphases.

Key Dates

31 October 2025

- Issuance date of Circular CSSF 25/897

Three months after financial year DEADLINE

end; - Annual submission deadline for SAQ to CSSF (unchanged from prior circulars)

Five months after financial year DEADLINE

end; - Submission deadline for REA Reports (Financial Instruments and Funds Report; AML/CFT Report)

Six months after financial year

end; - Aligned submission for REA management letter (per amendments in CSSF 23/845 to Circular 22/826)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Institutions face immediate refinement needs for 2025 year-end reporting (e.g., SAQ due ~Q1 2026), with stricter REA scrutiny on AML/CFT transparency risking supervisory findings or enforcement if vague assessments persist; aligns with ongoing CSSF push for risk-focused oversight amid regulatory evolution.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Bank

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

November 3rd 2025

Circular CSSF 22/821 (as amended by Circulars CSSF 24/865, CSSF 23/845 and CSSF 25/897) (Updated)

Long Form ReportPractical rules concerning the self-assessment questionnaire to be submitted by institutionsMission and related reports of the statutory auditors (réviseurs d’entreprises agréés)

AI Analysis

**Circular CSSF 22/821** (as amended) fundamentally restructures how Luxembourg credit institutions report to the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) by replacing the traditional Long Form Report with a digital **self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ)**, complemented by auditor-prepared reports. This shift represents a significant operational change that requires institutions to directly participate in prudential self-assessment while maintaining robust external audit oversight, making it essential for compliance and operational teams to understand new submission requirements and digital workflows.

What Changed

The circular introduces a three-component reporting framework that fundamentally alters the compliance landscape:
Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ): A digital, annually-completed questionnaire that institutions must prepare directly, covering domains within CSSF and ECB prudential supervision competence
Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP) Reports: Reports prepared by approved statutory auditors (réviseurs d'entreprises agréés) on specific compliance areas
Separate REA Report on Financial Instruments Protection: A dedicated auditor assessment on safeguarding of client financial instruments Scope of SAQ Coverage: The questionnaire addresses prudential...

Suggested Considerations

*For Credit Institutions:
*Establish SAQ Governance: Designate authorized management responsible for reviewing and electronically signing the SAQ before submission; ensure accuracy and true-and-fair representation of information
*Data Preparation: Align SAQ responses with prudential reporting figures (FINREP/COREP/LAREX) under IFRS as of financial year closure
*Digital System Access: Obtain access credentials to the CSSF digital solution and familiarize compliance teams with the platform interface and submission workflow
*Module Completion: Complete all applicable SAQ modules as configured in the CSSF digital solution; note that module applicability and exemptions are institution-specific and recorded directly in the system

Key Dates

25 October 2022

- Circular CSSF 22/821 issued

23 December 2022

- Initial publication date (updated 15 November 2023)

31 December 2022

- Circular enters into application

Three months before financial year closure

- SAQ becomes accessible through CSSF digital solution

Three months after financial year closure DEADLINE

- Deadline for SAQ submission to CSSF

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

November 3rd 2025

Circular CSSF 07/325 (as amended by Circulars CSSF 21/765, CSSF 22/827 and CSSF 25/898) (Updated)

Provisions relating to credit institutions and investment firms of EU origin established in Luxembourg by way of branches or exercising activities in Luxembourg by way of free provision of services

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 07/325, as amended by Circulars CSSF 21/765, CSSF 22/827, and most recently CSSF 25/898, establishes supervisory requirements for EU credit institutions and investment firms operating in Luxembourg via branches or free provision of services (FOPS). It matters for compliance professionals as it defines CSSF's host authority role, notification obligations, reporting, and enforcement powers, ensuring alignment with CRD and MiFID II while adapting to evolving EU rules.

What Changed

- CSSF 21/765: Updated provisions following amendments to CSSF Regulation No 12-02, refining notification and operational requirements for branches and FOPS.
CSSF 22/827: Further amendments to align with CRD and MiFID II changes, including enhanced notifications for programme alterations (e.g., one-month prior written notice for changes in operations,...
CSSF 25/898: Latest update (noted in CSSF Newsletter No 298, November 2025), incorporating recent legal/regulatory developments, such as refined reporting via eDesk portal, AML/CFT compliance...

Suggested Considerations

Notifications: Submit initial branch/FOPS notification to home authority (including operational programme); notify changes (e.g., services, locations) at least one month in advance to both home authority and CSSF.
Reporting: Complete and sign SAQ (accurate, concise, true/fair view) via eDesk within six months post-year-end; provide REA-appraised AML/CFT and conduct reports, detailing branch procedures/controls.
Supervision cooperation: Facilitate home/CSSF on-site inspections (with professional secrecy guarantees); ensure branch compliance with Luxembourg laws (e.g., LFS Article 46(2)).
Ongoing: Maintain branch infrastructure, update for legal changes, and align with CSSF user guides for eDesk authentication.

Key Dates

One month before change effective date

- Notify CSSF and home authority in writing of programme changes (e.g., operations, services, additional places of business) per CRD Article 36(3) and MiFID II Article 35(10)

Within 3 months of receipt

- Home state authority communicates notification file to CSSF for branch/FOPS establishment

Six months after financial year

end; - Submit electronically signed SAQ (via eDesk), annual AML/CFT and conduct of business report (per Circular CSSF 19/731, to be repealed by CSSF 25/902), reviewed by REA

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Matters due to recurring annual reporting (e.g., SAQ, AML/CFT within six months post-year-end) and prior notifications for changes, with CSSF enforcement powers (e.g., measures under LFS Article 46(2)) for non-compliance. Recent CSSF 25/898 update (Nov 2025) requires immediate review of processes for digital submissions, but no retroactive changes or hard deadlines post-2025; grandfathering for pre-existing setups reduces immediate pressure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Senior Managers / Governance

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

🇺🇸 SEC News medium

October 31st 2025

SEC Issues Exemptive Order Regarding Compliance with Certain Rules Under Regulation NMS

The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued an order granting temporary exemptive relief from certain compliance dates adopted under Regulation NMS: Minimum Pricing Increments, Access Fees and Transparency of Better Priced Orders as follows:…

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

October 31st 2025

Circular CSSF 25/898

Update of Circular CSSF 07/325 on Provisions relating to credit institutions and investment firms of EU origin established in Luxembourg by way of branches or exercising activities in Luxembourg by way of free provision of services, as amended by Circulars CSSF 21/765 and CSSF 22/827

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/898 updates Luxembourg's supervisory framework for EU-origin credit institutions and investment firms operating in Luxembourg through branches or free provision of services. This amendment enhances the self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) used by the CSSF to align supervisory oversight with current regulatory priorities, particularly adding UCI administration as a new thematic module. The update reflects the CSSF's evolving supervisory focus and requires affected institutions to demonstrate compliance with expanded assessment criteria.

What Changed

The circular introduces the following material modifications to Circular CSSF 07/325: New Supervisory Module
UCI administration has been added as a thematic module to the self-assessment questionnaire, reflecting increased regulatory attention to fund administration practices. Enhanced Self-Assessment...
Existing modules have been updated to better align with supervisory objectives and current regulatory priorities.
The revised SAQ now captures a broader range of supervisory points of focus relevant to branch operations and cross-border service provision. Scope Clarification
The circular applies to credit institutions whose head office is in another EU Member State and to investment firms of EU origin established in Luxembourg by way of branches or exercising activities...

Suggested Considerations

*Update Self-Assessment Processes
Revise internal SAQ completion procedures to address the new UCI administration module
Ensure all thematic modules reflect current supervisory expectations
*Assess UCI Administration Compliance
If the institution provides or is involved in UCI administration services, conduct a detailed assessment of compliance with CSSF expectations

Key Dates

31 October 2025

- Circular CSSF 25/898 published by the CSSF

19 December 2025

- Related modernization framework (Circular CSSF 25/901) entered into force for Part II UCIs, SIFs, and SICARs

No specific implementation deadline stated DEADLINE

- Institutions should align their SAQ responses and compliance documentation with the updated framework immediately upon publication

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original CSSF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

October 31st 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Belarus

Die Schweiz schliesst sich den weiteren Massnahmen des 18. Sanktionspakets der Europäischen Union (EU) gegenüber Russland sowie den zusätzlich zum 18. Sanktionspaket erlassenen Massnahmen gegenüber Belarus an. Dies hat der Bundesrat am 29. Oktober 2025 beschlossen. Im Fokus stehen Massnahmen im Güter-, Finanz und Energiebereich. Der Bundesrat hat dafür die Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber Belarus (SR 946.231.116.9) geändert.

AI Analysis

Switzerland has aligned with additional EU measures from the 18th sanctions package against Russia and specific Belarus measures, amending the Ordinance on Measures against Belarus (SR 946.231.116.9) to focus on goods, financial, and energy sectors. This strengthens the sanctions regime against Belarus to mirror Russia's more closely, aiming to enhance effectiveness and prevent circumvention. Compliance teams must prioritize asset freezes, transaction prohibitions, and reporting to avoid enforcement risks from FINMA and SECO.

What Changed

- Alignment with EU's 18th sanctions package (adopted 18 July 2025) and additional Belarus-specific measures, targeting Belarus's involvement in Russia's war against Ukraine.
Amendments to SR 946.231.116.9, harmonizing Belarus sanctions with Russia's regime, particularly in goods (e.g., export restrictions on chemicals, metals, plastics for military/tech strengthening),...
Requirements for financial intermediaries to implement prohibitions, freeze assets of sanctioned persons, and report affected business relationships to SECO (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs).
Reporting to SECO does not exempt intermediaries from AML due diligence under Art. 6 GwG (Anti-Money Laundering Act) or suspicious activity reports under Art.

Suggested Considerations

Immediately screen client portfolios, transactions, and assets against updated SECO sanctions lists for Belarus (and cross-reference Russia lists).
Freeze assets of newly sanctioned persons/entities and prohibit dealings (e.g., no transactions with listed banks, no exports of restricted goods).
Report all affected business relationships to SECO promptly; conduct parallel GwG AML checks and file SARs if suspicions persist.
Update compliance systems, transaction monitoring rules, and staff training for goods/financial/energy sanctions; cease any prohibited services (e.g., SWIFT-like messaging for listed banks).
Review third-party exposures (e.g., Drittländer firms) for evasion risks and document compliance efforts for FINMA audits.

Key Dates

18 July 2025

- EU adopts 18th sanctions package against Russia and additional Belarus measures

29 October 2025

- Swiss Federal Council decides to align and amends SR 946.231.116.9

30 October 2025

- New provisions enter into force

13 December 2025

- Related expansion of Russia/Belarus lists (22 persons, 42 entities, 116 ships, 45 trade firms) takes effect, relevant for harmonization context

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Effective 30 October 2025, these changes demand immediate portfolio screening and reporting, with non-compliance risking FINMA enforcement, asset seizure, or criminal penalties under sanctions laws. Matters due to rapid alignment with evolving EU packages, increasing circumvention risks via Belarus, and heightened FINMA scrutiny on financial intermediaries amid ongoing Russia/Ukraine conflict.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

October 30th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Russland

AI Analysis

On October 29, 2025, the Swiss Federal Council (Bundesrat) adopted comprehensive sanctions measures aligned with the EU's 18th sanctions package against Russia and additional measures against Belarus, effective October 30, 2025. This enforcement action significantly expands financial transaction prohibitions, export restrictions, and asset freezes, requiring Swiss financial intermediaries to immediately implement new compliance obligations across banking, goods trade, and energy sectors.

What Changed

Financial Sector Restrictions The Bundesrat expanded transaction prohibitions on Russian banks substantially:
Extended existing transaction bans from 23 Russian banks to cover all specialized payment messaging services, converting these to complete transaction prohibitions
Introduced new transaction prohibitions for 22 additional Russian banks
Prohibited all transactions with the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), its sub-funds, and affiliated enterprises, tightening restrictions previously limited to RDIF-financed projects Export...
Chemical components for fuel production

Suggested Considerations

*Implement transaction prohibitions on all 45+ Russian banks now subject to complete bans (previously 23 with partial restrictions)
*Freeze assets of all sanctioned persons and entities immediately upon notice
*Report affected business relationships to SECO—this reporting obligation does not relieve firms from conducting additional due diligence when suspicious indicators exist
*Screen counterparties against updated sanctions lists, particularly the RDIF and its sub-funds
*Cease all transactions with newly prohibited entities, including payment system operators and financial institutions in third countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan) supporting Russian war economy

Key Dates

October 29, 2025

- Federal Council decision adopted

October 30, 2025

- Measures effective date

Ongoing DEADLINE

- Financial intermediaries must implement prohibitions, freeze assets of sanctioned persons, and report affected business relationships to SECO (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: CRITICAL

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

October 28th 2025

PS19/25 – Restatement of CRR requirements – 2027 implementation – near-final

Policy statement 19/25

AI Analysis

**PS19/25** is the PRA's near-final policy statement finalizing how remaining Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) provisions will be restated into the PRA Rulebook, effective January 1, 2027. This represents a critical step in the UK's transition away from assimilated EU law, giving the PRA expanded rule-making authority over UK banks, building societies, and investment firms while introducing targeted policy changes to securitisation, credit risk treatment, and ECAI mapping.

What Changed

The near-final policy confirms and finalizes the following substantive amendments: Securitisation Requirements
Largely preserves current requirements and supervisory expectations with targeted policy changes
Introduces a new formulaic p-factor for the standardised approach to securitisation
Establishes new capital rules for certain mortgage exposures
Clarifies supervisory expectations for unfunded credit protection in synthetic Significant Risk Transfer (SRT) securitisations by adding expectations to SS9/13 Level of Application of CRR...

Suggested Considerations

*Review the final policy statement when published in Q1 2026 to understand specific rule changes applicable to your firm's business model
*Assess securitisation impacts: If your firm engages in securitisation activities, particularly synthetic SRT structures with unfunded credit protection, evaluate compliance with clarified supervisory expectations in SS9/13
*Evaluate mortgage capital treatment: Firms with significant mortgage lending should assess impact of new capital rules for certain mortgage exposures
*Update ECAI mapping processes: Firms relying on external credit assessments must prepare for amendments reflecting Basel 3.1 implementation
*Establish implementation timeline: Develop a project plan for January 1, 2027 implementation, including:

Key Dates

28 October 2025

- PRA published near-final policy statement PS19/25

Q1 2026

- PRA intends to publish final policies and rule instruments alongside or shortly after final Basel 3.1 package publication

1 January 2026

- Implementation date for certain proposals finalized in PS12/25 (limited scope)

1 January 2027

- Implementation date for policies and requirements in PS19/25 (primary implementation date)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA News medium

October 28th 2025

SoP5/15 – The PRA's methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital

Statement of Policy 5/15

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

🇬🇧 PRA Guidance high

October 28th 2025

SS31/15 - The Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP)

Supervisory statement 31/15

AI Analysis

SS31/15 is the PRA's foundational supervisory statement establishing expectations for how UK-regulated banks and large investment firms must conduct their Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and how the PRA will evaluate these assessments through its Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP). This guidance is critical because it directly determines the capital requirements firms must maintain and establishes the supervisory framework through which the PRA assesses whether firms hold sufficient capital to cover material risks.

What Changed

The supervisory statement establishes several core regulatory expectations: ICAAP Requirements
Firms must assess on an ongoing basis whether they hold sufficient capital to cover all material risks, including interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB), market risk, operational risk,...
Firms must implement stress testing and scenario analysis as integral components of capital planning
The management body must be actively involved and engaged in all relevant stages of the ICAAP process SREP Assessment Framework The PRA reviews and evaluates:
Arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by a firm to comply with regulatory requirements

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Compliance Actions
*Establish ICAAP Framework: Implement a comprehensive ICAAP that covers all material risks identified by the firm and the PRA, including those specific to the firm's business model and risk profile
*Risk Identification and Assessment: Conduct thorough identification of all material risks (IRRBB, market risk, operational risk, concentration risk, group risk, pension obligations, foreign currency lending) and assess capital adequacy against these risks
*Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis: Develop and maintain robust stress testing and scenario analysis capabilities, including:
Results of stress tests carried out in accordance with CRR requirements for firms using IRB approaches or internal models

Key Dates

29 July 2015

- SS31/15 first published, replacing PRA SS5/13 and PRA SS6/13

1 July 2026

- Effective date for updates to SS31/15 (as referenced in recent amendments)

Ongoing DEADLINE

- Firms must carry out ICAAP on a continuous basis in accordance with PRA ICAA rules

Compliance Impact

Urgency Rating: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

Insurance & Pensions Capital Markets & Trading

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

October 28th 2025

PS20/25 – The Strong and Simple Framework: The simplified capital regime for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs) – near-final

Policy Statement 20/25

AI Analysis

**PS20/25** represents the second and final phase of the PRA's "Strong and Simple Framework," establishing a significantly simplified capital regime for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs) while maintaining their resilience. This near-final policy statement, published on 28 October 2025, fundamentally restructures capital requirements, liquidity rules, and operational frameworks for SDDTs—a critical development for smaller deposit-taking institutions seeking regulatory relief from disproportionate compliance burdens.

What Changed

The simplified capital regime introduces structural changes across all three pillars of capital requirements: Pillar 1 (Risk-Weighted Assets)
SDDTs must apply Basel 3.1 standardised approaches for credit risk and operational risk, with specific simplifications.
Due diligence requirements in the standardised approach to credit risk are disapplied for SDDTs.
Counterparty credit risk (CCR) for derivatives and credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk are disapplied (with minor exceptions).
Market risk framework is simplified, with SDDTs applying the credit risk approach to trading book positions and removal of foreign-exchange and commodity risk capital requirements.

Suggested Considerations

*For SDDTs Currently Operating or Considering Entry:
*Notification Decision – Determine whether to enter the SDDT regime and submit notification to the PRA by 31 March 2026 if seeking to benefit from simplified rules.
*Policy Review – Conduct comprehensive review of PS20/25, related policy statements (PS18/25, PS19/25, PS8/25, PS14/25), and supporting methodologies (SoP5/25, SS4/25, amendments to SoP2/23).
*Capital Calculation Transition – Prepare systems and processes to transition from current capital calculation methodologies to Basel 3.1 standardised approaches with SDDT simplifications, including:
Removal of CCR and CVA calculations for derivatives

Key Dates

2026 (specific date TBD)

Policy statement 17/25

AI Analysis

PS17/25 establishes the **Matching Adjustment Investment Accelerator (MAIA) framework**, enabling PRA-regulated insurers to regularize and expand their use of matching adjustment (MA) in calculating capital requirements for certain long-duration insurance liabilities. This framework is significant because it provides a structured pathway for firms to optimize capital efficiency while maintaining prudential safeguards through exposure limits, eligibility assessments, and breach remediation mechanisms.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Insurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA News medium

October 22nd 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: ISIL (Da'esh) / Al-Kaida

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

October 21st 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Haiti

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs der Verordnung vom 16. Dezember 2022 über Massnahmen betreffend Haiti publiziert.

AI Analysis

The Swiss Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF, under which SECO operates) has published an update to the Annex of the Ordinance of 16 December 2022 on measures concerning Haiti, reflecting UN Security Council amendments to the sanctions list. This matters for Swiss financial institutions as it triggers immediate asset freeze checks and reporting obligations to ensure compliance with Switzerland's implementation of UN sanctions via FINMA and SECO oversight, avoiding enforcement risks amid Haiti's ongoing instability. The update aligns with global renewals of Haiti sanctions, emphasizing asset freezes on newly designated individuals and entities involved in destabilizing activities.

What Changed

- Amendment to the Annex of the Verordnung vom 16. Dezember 2022 über Massnahmen betreffend Haiti, incorporating UN Security Council updates to the sanctions list, likely adding individuals,...
Reflects broader UN measures, including renewal of travel bans, asset freezes, and arms embargoes; expansion of arms embargo scope to military goods, technology, technical assistance, financial...
Switzerland implements via SECO's sanction ordinances, with FINMA enforcing for supervised entities; parallels international updates like UN Resolution 2752 (2024) and 2794 (2025), which reintroduce...

Suggested Considerations

Screening and Freezing: Immediately review client databases, accounts, and holdings against the updated SECO Haiti sanctions list; freeze funds/economic resources of designated persons/entities without notice or delay; do not deal with or make available such assets indirectly.
Reporting: Notify SECO (via ams@seco.admin.ch or portal) and FINMA of matches, providing details on frozen assets; report any additional compliance-facilitating information.
Ongoing Monitoring: Update transaction screening systems for expanded arms embargo prohibitions (e.g., no financial services for military goods/technology to Haiti-connected persons); cease brokering or technical assistance if applicable.
Licensing Checks: Refrain from activities unless licensed by competent authorities (e.g., SECO for exemptions).
Documentation: Maintain records of checks and actions for audits; train staff on updated definitions (e.g., "military goods," "connected with Haiti").

Key Dates

18 October 2024

- UN Security Council Resolution 2752 adopted, expanding arms embargo (basis for Swiss/UK updates)

20 March 2025

- Canadian amendments add 3 individuals (related context)

Immediate (publication date: 21 October 2025) DEADLINE

- Swiss firms must check accounts, freeze assets or economic resources of newly listed persons without prior notice, and report to SECO/FINMA without delay

23 July 2025

- UK Haiti Sanctions Amendment Regulations enter force, reflecting similar UN changes

20 October 2025; - UNSC renews regime for one year, adds 2 entries to sanctions list (UK/Jersey notices align with Swiss publication)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Immediate asset freeze and reporting requirements carry criminal penalties for non-compliance (e.g., aligned with UK fines up to updated monetary levels); failure risks FINMA enforcement, reputational damage, and misalignment with UN obligations amid Haiti's volatile security. Matters due to expanded scope capturing indirect financial facilitation, increasing false positive screening burdens for firms with Haiti exposure.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

October 20th 2025

The AMF announces new measures to facilitate access to listing

Financial disclosures & corporate financing Public offer Prospectus Executive & other private individuals Professional investors Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF announces new measures to facilitate access to listing

Sectors:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance

Topics:

BankBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA News medium

October 17th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: ISIL (Da'esh) / Al-Kaida

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation low

October 16th 2025

LIAC02/25 – Low Impact Amendments Consultation October 2025

The PRA has published LIAC02/25, a consultation on proposed low impact amendments to rules and policy.

AI Analysis

The PRA's LIAC02/25 consultation, published on 16 October 2025, proposes low-impact amendments to its Rulebook and policy materials, including technical fixes, conditional disapplications, and miscellaneous corrections to enhance accuracy and align with prior policies. These changes matter for PRA-regulated firms as they ensure regulatory consistency with minimal operational burden, with most taking effect in late 2025 or early 2026 following the consultation period.

What Changed

The main proposals include:
Conditional disapplication of PRA General Provisions to implement deference arrangements under the UK-Swiss Berne Financial Services Agreement.
Amendment to Transitional Measure on Technical Provisions (TMTP) Part, Rule 5.2, introducing a new formula for 'Wr' effective 31 December 2025, using existing 'Wq' values without retrospective...
Amendment to Insurance Special Purpose Vehicle (ISPV) Part, Solvency Requirements Rule 2.2A(3), clarifying the 'no co-mingling' requirement, effective 23 December 2025, alongside updates to SS2/25.
Miscellaneous amendments to the PRA Rulebook, such as glossary updates, fundamental rules, general provisions, interpretation, notifications, and policyholder protection parts. Amendments made...

Suggested Considerations

Submit consultation responses by 13 November 2025 via the PRA's Low Impact Amendments Process page, focusing on proposed disapplications, TMTP formula, ISPV rules, and miscellaneous changes.
Review and update internal policies for TMTP calculations to adopt the new 'Wr' formula from 31 December 2025 year-end, without restating priors.
Confirm compliance with ISPV 'no co-mingling' clarifications and SS2/25 updates by 23 December 2025.
Verify Rulebook references (e.g., Securitisation, parent undertakings) and adjust systems for effective dates like 19 January 2026.
For friendly societies/credit unions: Note zero minimum fees already reflected in 2025/26 invoices; no further action needed.

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

October 15th 2025

PS21/25 – Remuneration Reform

Policy statement 21/25

AI Analysis

PS21/25 implements reforms to PRA remuneration rules for banks, building societies, and PRA-designated investment firms, simplifying Material Risk Taker (MRT) identification, aligning deferral periods with international standards (4 years for non-SMF MRTs and 5 years for SMFs), and enhancing links to individual accountability under the Senior Managers Regime (SMR). These changes matter as they reduce regulatory burden, increase flexibility in bonus structures (e.g., marginal deferral rates and cash payments), and promote competitiveness while maintaining risk alignment, potentially reversing trends toward higher fixed pay.

What Changed

- MRT Identification: Simplified quantitative threshold to the top 0.3% of earners (assessed against risk impact); qualitative criteria unchanged; raised proportionality threshold for disapplying...
Deferral Periods: 4-year minimum for non-SMF MRTs (previously varied); reduced to 5 years for SMFs (from 7 years); aligns with FCA and international practice.
Deferral Rates: Marginal system—40% deferral on first £660,000 of variable remuneration, 60% above; replaces cliff-edge approach for proportionality.
Upfront Cash Flexibility: Removed equal cash/instrument split requirement (Remuneration 15.16 deleted); deferred portion should have higher instrument share as good practice (new SS2/17 para 5.44B);...
Individual Accountability: New rules/expectations for adjusting remuneration up the management chain for adverse outcomes; senior management accountable against PRA priorities; Remuneration...

Suggested Considerations

Review and update MRT identification processes, applying simplified top 0.3% threshold and new proportionality exemptions.
Revise remuneration policies for deferral (4/5 years, marginal rates), upfront cash flexibility, and instrument expectations; update bonus award calculations.
Embed SMR-linked adjustments: Define criteria for chain-wide pay reductions on adverse outcomes; align Remuneration Committee oversight with PRA priorities and risk events.
For dual-regulated firms: Transition to PRA-cross-referenced FCA rules (SYSC 19D).
Optional early adoption for specified changes on 2025/unvested awards; document governance for RemCo approvals and board policies.

Key Dates

November 2024

Preceding joint consultation (CP16/24/PRA, CP24/23/FCA) closed prior to PS

15 October 2025

Publication date; some changes (e.g., deferral periods, pro-rata vesting) may apply to ongoing 2025 performance year and unvested prior awards at firm discretion

16 October 2025

Final rules and updated SS2/17 take effect; apply to performance years starting after this date (e.g., mandatory from 1 January 2026 for calendar-year firms)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Mandatory from performance years post-16 October 2025 (e.g., 2026 for most), with immediate opt-in possible; impacts 2026 bonus cycles, requiring swift policy rewrites amid year-end planning. Matters due to simplified but ownership-heavy MRT processes, SMR-pay linkages raising accountability risks, and flexibility needing robust justification to avoid supervisory challenge; non-compliance risks enforcement under PRA accountability regimes.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Senior Managers / Governance Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA News medium

October 10th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: ISIL (Da'esh) / Al-Kaida

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 BoE News

October 10th 2025

Minutes of the Securities Lending Committee meeting – September 2025

The Securities Lending Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK securities lending market.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance

Asset ManagerBankBroker Dealer

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management

🇬🇧 PRA policy_statement high

October 9th 2025

PS16/25 – Markets in Financial Instruments Directive Organisational Regulation (MiFID Org Reg)

Policy statement 16/25

AI Analysis

PS16/25 is the PRA's policy statement restating firm-facing organisational requirements from the MiFID Org Reg (e.g., outsourcing, record-keeping, risk management, compliance, internal audit, and governance) into the PRA Rulebook, with no material changes, to align with HMT's revocation of the EU regulation under FSMA 2023. This matters because it ensures continuity of prudential oversight for PRA-authorised firms post-revocation, preventing enforcement gaps in systems and controls while adapting provisions (e.g., supervisory function) to UK governance structures.

What Changed

- Restatement of requirements: Provisions from MiFID Org Reg Articles on outsourcing, record-keeping, control procedures, risk management, compliance, internal audit, and governance are transferred...
Supervisory function adjustment: Following consultation feedback, PRA retained Article 25 provisions but substituted "governing body" for "supervisory function" to fit UK firm structures, preserving...
Technical standards update: Minor amendment to algorithmic trading technical standards, replacing references to revoked MiFID Org Reg Article 23(2) with new PRA Rulebook rule 2.2D.
No policy or scope changes; adjustments mainly reflect PRA drafting style and respond to feedback for clarity.

Suggested Considerations

Review and map existing MiFID Org Reg compliance processes against restated PRA Rulebook provisions (e.g., update policies on outsourcing, risk management, governance).
Confirm governing body oversight aligns with adapted Article 25 requirements; document any adjustments for UK structures.
Update internal references in algorithmic trading governance documents to new rule 2.2D.
Conduct gap analysis and training on minor clarifications; prepare for dual FCA/PRA alignment if applicable.
Monitor HMT commencement order; if delayed, reassess implementation plans.

Key Dates

9 October 2025

- PRA publishes PS16/25 with final rules and feedback to CP9/25 consultation

23 October 2025

- New PRA rules and technical standards come into force, coinciding with HMT's anticipated revocation of MiFID Org Reg via commencement order (FCA rules align on same date)

Prior to 23 October 2025

- HMT expected to lay second Statutory Instrument revoking remaining MiFID Org Reg provisions; PRA may delay/revoke rules if not made

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Firms must act promptly as rules take effect on 23 October 2025 (past deadline as of current date), with no transition period; non-compliance risks enforcement gaps in core systems/controls post-revocation. Impact is low for substance (restatement only) but requires documentation updates to avoid supervisory scrutiny, especially for governance and outsourcing.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE Speech

October 9th 2025

Explaining the consumption gap - speech by Catherine L Mann

Given at the Resolution Foundation

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Payments & E-Money

🇨🇭 FINMA Guidance medium

October 9th 2025

FINMA publishes guidance on the extension of the transitional period for exchange of collateral in certain OTC derivatives transactions

The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA today published guidance on the extension of the transitional period for exchange of collateral in certain OTC derivatives transactions. The current transitional period runs until 1 January 2026 and will be extended by a further three years.

AI Analysis

FINMA extended the transitional period for collateral exchange requirements in non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2029, providing Swiss market participants with three additional years of relief from mandatory collateral posting obligations on certain equity derivatives. This extension aligns Swiss regulation with the EU's indefinite exemption introduced in December 2024, preventing competitive disadvantages for Swiss derivatives traders while a permanent regulatory framework is developed.

What Changed

The primary regulatory change is the extension of the transitional period under Article 131 paragraph 5bis of the Financial Market Infrastructure Ordinance (FinMIO). Specifically:
Previous deadline: January 1, 2026
New deadline: January 1, 2029
Scope: Applies to non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives transactions involving equity options, index options, and equity basket derivatives that are not cleared through a FINMA-authorized or...
Regulatory basis: FINMA Guidance 04/2025, issued October 9, 2025, under authority granted by Article 131 paragraph 6 FinMIO The extension does not eliminate the collateral exchange obligation;...

Suggested Considerations

*Acknowledge the extended timeline: Update internal compliance calendars and risk management frameworks to reflect the January 1, 2029 deadline rather than January 1, 2026.
*Monitor FinMIA revision: Track ongoing legislative developments regarding the permanent regulatory framework for OTC derivatives to prepare for post-2029 compliance requirements.
*Assess competitive positioning: Evaluate whether the extended transitional period affects trading strategies, counterparty relationships, or market competitiveness relative to EU and UK peers.

Key Dates

🇬🇧 BoE News

October 8th 2025

Minutes of the London FXJSC Operations Sub-Committee Meeting - 18 June 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Market Abuse / Surveillance Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 BoE News medium

October 7th 2025

Foreign Currency Reserves 2025 – Market Notice 7 October 2025

Not for distribution, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan or any other jurisdiction where it is unlawful to distribute this announcement.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Banking & Credit

🇫🇷 AMF Consultation medium

October 7th 2025

Corporate sustainability reporting: AMF’s response to EFRAG’s consultation on the simplification of European standards

Sustainable Finance Periodic & ongoing disclosures Corporate sustainability reporting: AMF’s response to EFRAG’s consultation on the simplification of European standards

AI Analysis

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), France's financial markets regulator, responded to EFRAG's July 31, 2025, public consultation on simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the CSRD, welcoming a 57% reduction in mandatory datapoints and 55% shorter standards while urging refinements in materiality, climate reporting, and financial effects disclosure. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals upcoming proportionate ESRS revisions that could ease reporting burdens for large listed companies starting voluntarily in 2026, enhancing investor usability without diluting key sustainability insights.

What Changed

AMF endorses EFRAG's simplifications but proposes targeted adjustments:
Materiality assessment: Support for proportionate double materiality (impacts, risks, opportunities or IRO) but requires minimum specification of impact type (positive/negative, risk, opportunity);...
Climate reporting: Regrets removal of "net zero" definition (90-95% gross GHG reduction trajectory), essential for 2024 comparability.
Anticipated financial effects: Strongly backs Option 1 (quantitative info required, with exceptions) for climate matters to align with ISSB and investor needs; flexible for other topics.
Reporting reliefs: Supports "undue costs/efforts" exemptions (e.g., metrics except Scope 3 GHG) with time-bound limits to match ISSB. EFRAG's draft cuts mandatory datapoints by 57-61%, eliminates...

Suggested Considerations

Monitor EFRAG's post-consultation technical advice (end-November 2025) and EC adoption process; prepare for voluntary uptake in 2026 reporting cycles.
Listed companies: Refine materiality processes to specify IRO types and use gross impacts; retain "net zero" definitions in climate plans; prioritize quantitative climate financial effects.
Conduct or update materiality assessments per EFRAG guidance (e.g., value chain, thresholds); leverage "undue costs" relief judiciously with time limits.
Prepare xHTML digital tagging for sustainability statements in management reports.
French firms: Align 2026 statements with AMF supervisory expectations, noting non-adoption of ESMA's GLESI guidelines pending full CSRD transposition.

Key Dates

July 31, 2025

- EFRAG publishes draft simplified ESRS for public consultation

September 29, 2025

- Consultation closes

End of November 2025

- EFRAG submits technical advice to European Commission

June 2026

- Sector-specific ESRS adoption planned

2026 financial year (reports in 2027)

- Voluntary application of simplified standards, if legislative timeline allows

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Not immediate mandates, as this is a consultation response with voluntary 2026 start, but proactive preparation is essential for large listed firms facing AMF scrutiny on 2025/2026 statements. Matters due to potential burden reduction (57% fewer datapoints) balanced by AMF's push for investor-critical details like quantitative climate effects, aligning EU CSRD with global ISSB standards amid supervisory ramp-up.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankAll Firms

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance medium

October 6th 2025

Circular CSSF-CPDI 25/47

Survey on the amount of covered deposits held on 30 September 2025

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF-CPDI 25/47 mandates a regular survey by Luxembourg credit institutions on the amount of covered deposits as of **30 September 2025**, focusing on eligible and covered deposits under the Law of 18 December 2015 on deposit guarantee schemes. It matters because it ensures accurate reporting to the Conseil de protection des déposants et des investisseurs (CPDI) for FGDL (Fonds de garantie des dépôts Luxembourg) compliance, with detailed field-by-field instructions for complex accounts like omnibus and trusts.

What Changed

This circular updates prior guidance (notably CSSF-CPDI 16/02 as amended by CSSF-CPDI 23/35) by specifying the survey reference date of 30 September 2025 and providing granular reporting fields for eligible deposits (e.g., exclusions for financial institution-like structures and life insurance products), covered deposits capped at €100,000 per person, and breakdowns by natural/legal persons, including shares in omnibus accounts, fiduciaries, trusts, sub-accounts, and segregated accounts.

Suggested Considerations

Collect data on total deposits (field 0100), apply exclusions per Article 172 (field 0201), calculate covered deposits up to €100,000 limit (field 0300), and break down by natural/legal persons, balance thresholds, and special accounts (fields 0210-0330).
For omnibus/trust accounts, obtain and report shares of identifiable entitled persons, apportion by legal status of holder, and ensure fields like 0226 and 0255 reconcile.
Designated management reviews/approves data; transmit accurately to CSSF/CPDI, respecting prior circulars (e.g., 16/02, 23/35).
Exclude non-creditor accounts or those assimilated to financial institutions/life insurance.

Key Dates

Topics:

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Capital Markets & Trading

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

October 1st 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Russland

AI Analysis

The publication announces updates by the Swiss Federal Department for Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) to Annex 8 of the Ordinance on Measures in Connection with the Situation in Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72), aligning Swiss sanctions against Russia with ongoing international restrictions. This matters for Swiss financial intermediaries as it imposes immediate obligations to block assets, report relationships, and conduct AML checks, amid escalating sanctions that heighten compliance risks and enforcement scrutiny from FINMA.

What Changed

- Amendments to Annexes 8, 14, 15b, and 33 of the Ordinance, though specific details on new listings or prohibitions are not detailed in the announcement.
Continuation of standard requirements: Implement prohibitions, freeze assets of sanctioned persons, and report affected business relationships to SECO (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs).
These updates follow a pattern of prior changes, such as expanded export bans on dual-use goods (e.g., chrome ore, chemicals), transaction bans on additional Russian banks, and prohibitions on...

Suggested Considerations

Screen and freeze assets: Immediately identify and block assets of newly sanctioned persons/entities per updated annexes; do not release without authorization.
Report to SECO: Notify SECO of all affected business relationships without delay.
Conduct AML due diligence: Perform additional clarifications under Art. 6 GwG (Anti-Money Laundering Act) on suspicions; file suspicious activity reports (SARs) with the Money Laundering Reporting Office Switzerland (MROS) under Art. 9 GwG if unresolved—SECO reporting does not substitute this.
Review transactions: Halt prohibited activities (e.g., payments to/from listed banks, exports of controlled goods, RDIF investments); update screening tools and client onboarding processes.
Document compliance: Maintain records of screenings, blocks, and reports for FINMA audits.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Critical – Effective immediately at 23:00 on January 13, 2026, with no grace period, this demands urgent system updates, screenings, and reporting to avoid FINMA enforcement (e.g., fines, licenses at risk). It amplifies AML / Financial Crime risks in a high-scrutiny environment, as FINMA's Risikomonitor 2025 highlights Russia sanctions as a top concern amid iterative updates.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

October 1st 2025

Policy statement 15/25

AI Analysis

PS15/25 introduces **new liquidity risk reporting requirements for major UK insurance firms**, closing data gaps identified during the March 2020 "dash for cash" and September 2022 LDI crisis. The policy mandates four new reporting templates for firms with significant derivatives or securities lending exposure, with implementation deferred to **30 September 2026** to allow adequate preparation time.

What Changed

The PRA's final policy establishes the following regulatory framework: New Reporting Templates Four new liquidity reporting templates have been introduced to capture previously unavailable data:
Annual committed facilities template
Monthly cash-flow mismatch template (short form)
Monthly cash-flow mismatch template for ring-fenced funds, matching adjustment portfolios, and remaining parts
Additional supervisory reporting requirements Scope and Thresholds Firms are subject to liquidity reporting if they meet both of the following conditions:

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate Actions (by Q2 2026):
*Threshold Assessment: Determine whether your firm meets the £10 billion derivatives or £1 billion securities lending thresholds
*RFF Mapping: If applicable, identify ring-fenced funds with £500 million+ gross notional derivatives exposure
*System Readiness: Begin implementing technical infrastructure for monthly and daily reporting submissions
*Data Governance: Establish processes to capture and validate liquidity data in the required templates

Key Dates

30 September 2025

- PRA published PS15/25 (policy statement)

31 December 2025 DEADLINE

- Original implementation deadline (now superseded)

30 September 2026

- **Final implementation date for all liquidity reporting requirements**

First reporting reference date after 30 September 2026 DEADLINE

- Firms meeting threshold conditions must commence reporting

Three consecutive annual reporting reference dates

- Threshold for ceasing reporting once firms fall below thresholds

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

Topics:

Insurance

🇬🇧 PRA Guidance high

September 30th 2025

SS15/16 – Solvency II: Monitoring model drift and standard formula SCR reporting for firms with permission to use an internal model

Supervisory Statement 15/16

AI Analysis

SS15/16 establishes the PRA's expectations for UK insurance firms using approved internal models to calculate their Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), requiring them to maintain the ability to calculate SCR using the standard formula and submit standard formula SCR calculations for regulatory monitoring purposes. This guidance is critical because it ensures capital requirements remain reflective of actual firm risks and protects policyholder security by preventing model drift—where internal models diverge from underlying risk realities over time.

What Changed

The supervisory statement introduces several core regulatory expectations:
Internal Model Maintenance Requirement: Firms with approved internal models must maintain the capability to calculate SCR using the standard formula, even if they primarily use internal models for...
Standard Formula SCR Reporting: Firms using approved internal models to calculate solo SCR are expected to report standard formula SCR results privately to the PRA on an annual basis.
Model Drift Monitoring Framework: The PRA uses model drift ratios calculated at model approval and re-based following material changes in risk profile or major model changes to monitor whether...
Submission Format and Timing: Standard formula SCR information must be submitted through XBRL-enabled Excel files or full XBRL format, four weeks following firms' annual quantitative reporting...

Suggested Considerations

*Maintain Dual Calculation Capability: Preserve the technical ability to calculate SCR using the standard formula, regardless of internal model approval status.
*Establish Annual Reporting Process: Implement procedures to calculate and submit standard formula SCR results annually through XBRL-enabled Excel or full XBRL format via BEEDS portal.
*Integrate into Risk Management: Incorporate standard formula SCR calculations into own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA), risk management, and model validation cycles.
*Obtain Senior Management Approval: Ensure standard formula submissions are reviewed and approved by appropriately authorized senior management before submission.
*Maintain Supporting Documentation: Retain quantitative and qualitative documentation supporting standard formula calculations to demonstrate appropriateness for model drift monitoring purposes.

Key Dates

25 October 2016

- Original SS15/16 publication

31 December 2018

- Document updated (referenced in original guidance)

September 2025

- Most recent update to SS15/16 published, clarifying expectations for firms with material non-life technical provisions

30 September 2026 DEADLINE

- Implementation deadline for liquidity reporting rules (related Solvency II development)

Four weeks after annual quantitative reporting submission DEADLINE

- Deadline for standard formula SCR reporting

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Insurance

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

September 30th 2025

Letter from David Bailey ‘Thematic feedback on accounting for IFRS 9 expected credit losses (ECL)’

Letter to chief financial officers of selected PRA-regulated deposit-takers which provides thematic feedback from the PRA’s review of written auditor reports received in 2025 covering IFRS 9 expected credit loss accounting (ECL) and accounting for climate risk.

AI Analysis

The PRA's Dear CFO Letter, issued on 30 September 2025 by David Bailey, provides thematic feedback to selected PRA-regulated deposit-takers based on its 2025 review of auditor reports on IFRS 9 expected credit loss (ECL) accounting and climate risk integration. It matters because it highlights persistent supervisory concerns around timely credit risk recognition, model limitations, recovery assumptions, and climate impacts amid economic uncertainty, urging firms to strengthen ECL processes to ensure safety and soundness.

What Changed

This is not a formal rule change or new regulation but thematic feedback building on prior years, with "areas of focus" for improvement:
Model risk: Elevated due to macroeconomic/geopolitical uncertainty; firms must enhance post-model adjustments (PMAs) for completeness (e.g., affordability risks, sector vulnerabilities), granular...
Recovery strategies: Ongoing risk of historical bias in Loss Given Default (LGD) estimates; challenge realism of recovery assumptions for vulnerable sectors/borrowers.
Climate risks: Greater emphasis on identifying/assessing/modelling climate drivers in ECL (e.g., via expert judgement, stress tests); align with PRA's SS1/23 on model risk and upcoming clarifications...

Suggested Considerations

Conduct self-assessments against annex "areas of focus" (model risk, recovery, climate) and share with auditors ahead of 2026 reporting.
Enhance PMAs: Challenge completeness for emerging risks (e.g., interest rates, sectors); link to emerging risk analysis.
Model improvements: Monitor redevelopment plans; ensure granular monitoring, comprehensive reviews, skilled independent assurance; define model boundaries.
Recovery processes: Strengthen challenges to LGD recovery assumptions for vulnerable exposures.
Climate integration: Improve risk identification, quantitative analysis, data/modelling, oversight; align governance with SS1/23.

Key Dates

2025

- Auditor reports reviewed by PRA (basis for this feedback)

30 September 2025

- PRA issues Dear CFO Letter with thematic feedback

2026

- Next round of written auditor reporting on firms' progress against areas of focus, including data aggregation and securitisation impacts; firms encouraged to self-assess now

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – Persistent issues from prior years (e.g., 2024 feedback) indicate elevated model risk in uncertain conditions could lead to PRA scrutiny, auditor findings, or enforcement if unaddressed; 2026 auditor reports will benchmark progress, risking heightened supervision. Matters for prudential stability as ECL underpins capital requirements.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Prudential / Capital Requirements ESG Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Bank

🇱🇺 CSSF Guidance high

September 29th 2025

Circular CSSF-CODERES 25/21

Single Resolution Fund – Information request by the Single Resolution Board for the calculation of the 2026 contribution according to Articles 4 and 14 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF-CODERES 25/21, issued by the CSSF on 29 September 2025, mandates Luxembourg credit institutions to submit specific data via XBRL-formatted Data Reporting Forms (DRFs) to enable the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to calculate 2026 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) under Articles 4 and 14 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63. This matters because non-compliance risks SRB using estimates, applying the highest risk multiplier, or penalties, ensuring the financial sector funds resolution costs without taxpayer burden.

What Changed

- Introduces data collection for 2026 SRF contributions, conditional on SRB verifying SRF funds fall below 1% of covered deposits in the Banking Union by early 2026.
Mandates XBRL submission of DRFs (except restatements up to 2022 in Excel); provides templates in Annexes 3a, 4, 5 (User Guide), and 7a/7b for additional assurances.
Additional assurance requirements (e.g., auditor reports or Agreed-Upon Procedures - AUP) apply conditionally to ECB-supervised institutions unless under lump-sum payment; restatements require AUP by...
References SRB's 2026 kick-off letter (Annex 1) and ECB-supervised list (Annex 6 as of 24 September 2025).

Suggested Considerations

Download and complete DRF using Annexes (e.g., Annex 3a PDF, Annex 5 User Guide v1.4); submit in XBRL format by deadline.
For ECB-supervised institutions: Provide additional assurances per Annex 7a/7b if SRB proceeds with collections; prepare restatement AUPs with auditor exceptions where applicable.
Align internal systems with CSSF templates early; validate data to avoid SRB assumptions under Article 17(1) DR.
Review Annex 1 (SRB kick-off letter), Annex 4 (2026 Guidance), and Annex 6 (ECB list).

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined asset management company Altaroc Partners €600,000 and its senior managers Maurice Tchenio (€500,000) and Patrick de Giovanni (€200,000) a total of €1.3 million on 15 September 2025 for breaches of professional obligations, including non-operational investment procedures, inadequate AML/CFT due diligence, deficient marketing materials, and unproven benefits from fee retrocessions to distributors. This decision underscores the AMF's heightened scrutiny on operational controls and senior accountability in asset management, serving as a critical enforcement signal for firms to strengthen procedures amid a pattern of similar sanctions.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action rather than new legislation, but it reinforces and clarifies existing professional obligations under AMF regulations for asset managers (sociétés de gestion),...
Operational investment/divestment procedures: Must be fully implemented, with traceability of checks on lender authorizations and compliance with fund policies.
AML/CFT due diligence: Systematic verification required on fund assets and liabilities; non-operational procedures or risk mapping constitute breaches.
Marketing and fee retrocessions: Materials must be accurate; firms must prove retrocessions enhance client service quality.
Senior manager accountability: Breaches attributable to responsible managers, emphasizing personal liability for oversight failures. No explicit regulatory changes, but the decision aligns with AMF's...

Suggested Considerations

Audit procedures immediately: Review and document operational status of investment/divestment processes, ensuring traceability of lender checks, fund policy compliance, and AML/CFT due diligence on assets/liabilities.
Enhance AML/CFT systems: Formalize risk mapping, procedures, and systematic investor/transaction due diligence; test for operational effectiveness.
Validate marketing and fees: Audit fund materials for accuracy; gather evidence that fee retrocessions to distributors improve client services (e.g., via service level agreements or performance metrics).
Senior manager training: Conduct gap analysis on personal accountability; update governance frameworks to mitigate attribution of firm breaches.
Mock AMF inspections: Simulate Enforcement Committee reviews, focusing on procedure formalization, independent valuers (if applicable), and conflict systems.

Key Dates

15 September 2025

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision issued, imposing fines on Altaroc Partners, Maurice Tchenio, and Patrick de Giovanni

16 September 2025

- French version of press release published

Post

15 September 2025 (exact date unspecified); - Appeal lodged by Altaroc Partners, Tchenio, and de Giovanni before the Conseil d’État against decision SAN-2025-09

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High – This fits a 2025 enforcement trend targeting asset managers' operational deficiencies (e.g., similar fines against Novaxia Investissement on 10 December 2025, M Capital Partners on 31 December 2025, and Eternam on 9 September 2025), signaling AMF's zero-tolerance for non-operational controls and AML gaps amid EU AIFMD reviews. Non-compliance risks personal fines up to €500,000+ for managers, reputational damage, and authorization challenges; proactive remediation is essential as appeals (like this one) do not suspend obligations.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset Manager

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF News

September 22nd 2025

Sustainable finance: retail investors have higher expectations of their financial advisors

Long term investment Sustainable Finance Retail investors Journalists Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers Sustainable finance: retail investors have higher expectations of their financial advisors

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇦🇪 DFSA News

September 22nd 2025

Masaar: DFSA welcomes 2025 cohort of its graduate programme, helping to foster…

22 SEP 2025, 11:05 AM Masaar: DFSA welcomes 2025 cohort of its graduate programme, helping to foster…

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

September 22nd 2025

CP21/25 – Future banking data review: Deletion of banking reporting templates

Consultation paper 21/25

AI Analysis

The PRA's CP21/25 proposes deletion of 37 banking regulatory reporting templates—primarily 34 FINREP templates representing approximately one-third of all FINREP collections—as the first phase of its Future Banking Data (FBD) programme. This initiative aims to reduce annual reporting burden by approximately £26 million while maintaining supervisory effectiveness by eliminating duplicative, outdated, or low-value data collections.

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original PRA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements

Topics:

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇪🇺 ECB News

September 17th 2025

Supervisory Banking Statistics for significant institutions - Second quarter 2025

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

September 17th 2025

European supervision of capital markets: the AMF calls for an enhanced role for ESMA to promote a true Savings and Investments Union

Supervision Other professionals Fintech Market Infrastructures Professional investors Journalists Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers European supervision of capital markets: the AMF calls for an enhanced...

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure ESG

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Consumer Credit

🇦🇪 DFSA News

September 16th 2025

New DFSA Thematic Review: High-Growth Firms

16 SEP 2025, 02:18 PM New DFSA Thematic Review: High-Growth Firms

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBankFintech

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇬🇧 PRA Consultation high

September 16th 2025

CP20/25 – Insurance third-country branches: policy implementation and other updates

Consultation paper 20/25

AI Analysis

CP20/25 is a PRA consultation paper published on 16 September 2025 that proposes targeted updates to the regulatory framework governing third-country insurance branches operating in the UK. The consultation addresses inconsistencies introduced during the Solvency II review, clarifies supervisory expectations, and increases the subsidiarisation threshold—matters that directly affect the operational and compliance costs of non-UK insurers seeking to maintain branch operations rather than establish subsidiaries in the UK market.

What Changed

The consultation proposes four primary regulatory modifications: Subsidiarisation Threshold Increase The PRA proposes raising the FSCS liability threshold above which third-country branches must establish a UK subsidiary from £500 million to £600 million. The PRA attributes this increase to inflation rather than organic growth, aiming to prevent branches from artificially approaching the current threshold and incurring unnecessary subsidiarisation costs. ORSA Reporting Clarification Current guidance will be updated to clarify that third-country branches must submit an Own Risk and Self...

Suggested Considerations

*Threshold Assessment: Larger third-country branches must reassess whether their liabilities, forecast for the coming three years, mean they need to become subsidiaries given the proposed increased subsidiarisation threshold.
*Reporting Requirement Review: Branches should review updated guidance on ORSA submissions to ensure they provide the undertaking-level ORSA (rather than branch-specific ORSA) with required high-level summaries of solvency position, capital buffer rationale, and stress testing results.
*Quantitative Metrics Compliance: Given new quantitative metrics replacing previous PRA firm categorisation, branches should review what requirements will apply to them to ensure they do not inadvertently misreport.
*Three-Year Notification Obligation: Branches should establish processes to notify the PRA where it is projected that they may exceed the subsidiarisation threshold within the next three years.
*Asset Holding Verification: Confirm that branch assets are held in respect of branch provisions and that assets backing direct insurance liabilities are available, as required by the new rule.

Key Dates

16 September 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Payments & E-Money

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

August 19th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Islamischen Republik Iran

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs 7 der Verordnung vom 11. November 2015 über Massnahmen gegenüber der Islamischen Republik Iran (SR 946.231.143.6) publiziert.

AI Analysis

On August 18, 2025, the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (WBF) published an updated sanctions notification regarding Iran, specifically modifying Annex 7 of the Ordinance on Measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran (SR 946.231.143.6). This update is critical for Swiss financial institutions and businesses because it reflects the evolving sanctions landscape following the automatic reinstatement of UN Security Council resolutions on Iran's nuclear program in September 2025.

What Changed

The August 2025 notification updated the list of designated persons, entities, and organizations subject to Swiss sanctions against Iran. While the search results do not provide the specific details of individual entries added or removed from Annex 7, this type of notification typically reflects changes to the UN Security Council's consolidated sanctions list that Switzerland is obligated to implement under its Embargo Act (EmbG). The broader context shows that Switzerland was preparing for significant sanctions escalation: on December 12, 2025, the Swiss Federal Council conducted a total...

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate compliance obligations:
*Sanctions List Screening: Update all sanctions screening systems and databases to reflect the August 2025 Annex 7 modifications and subsequent December 2025 total revision
*Transaction Review: Conduct comprehensive review of existing Iranian counterparties, customers, and beneficiaries against updated FINMA-published lists
*Account Monitoring: Identify and freeze accounts or assets belonging to designated persons and entities; report frozen assets to authorities
*Reporting: File mandatory notifications with FINMA and relevant authorities regarding any identified matches or transactions with sanctioned parties

Key Dates

August 18, 2025

- WBF published updated sanctions notification for Iran (Annex 7 modifications)

August 28, 2025

- Germany, France, and UK triggered UN snapback mechanism

September 15, 2025

- Harmonization of sanctions ordinances entered into force (affecting financial sanctions procedures across multiple jurisdictions including Iran)

September 27, 2025

- UN nuclear-related sanctions against Iran automatically reinstated

September 28, 2025

- EU reactivated suspended sanctions related to Iran's proliferation activities

Compliance Impact

Urgency: CRITICAL

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankAsset ManagerPayment Provider

Banking & Credit Payments & E-Money Investment Management

🇱🇺 CSSF Enforcement high

August 18th 2025

Circular CSSF 25/896

Adoption of the EBA Guidelines on internal policies, procedures and controls to ensure the implementation of Union and national restrictive measures (sanctions)

AI Analysis

Circular CSSF 25/896 adopts the EBA Guidelines EBA/GL/2024/14 and EBA/GL/2024/15, mandating Luxembourg financial institutions to establish robust internal policies, procedures, and controls for complying with EU and national restrictive measures (sanctions). This matters because it sets binding EU-wide standards to prevent sanctions violations and circumvention, with absolute obligations for immediate asset freezing and reporting, amid escalating geopolitical tensions.

What Changed

- Institutions must develop, implement, and maintain up-to-date policies, procedures, and controls for identifying, investigating, and applying restrictive measures without delay, including risk...
Management body responsibilities expanded: approve sanctions compliance strategy, oversee implementation, conduct at least annual assessments of exposure and controls, ensure remedial actions, and...
Screening and monitoring requirements: Maintain updated sanctions lists with immediate integration of changes; screen customer base, transactions, and datasets accurately; enable immediate...
Training and testing: Deliver regular, documented role-specific training; perform ongoing system testing for screening calibration, list accuracy, transaction monitoring effectiveness, and reporting.
Proportionality applies based on institution's size, activities, and exposure; PSPs and CASPs explicitly addressed with tailored controls.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct annual exposure assessments to sanctions risks and circumvention; update policies accordingly.
Appoint senior management/board-level responsibility for approving and overseeing sanctions strategy, including annual reviews and deficiency reporting.
Implement reliable screening systems for customers, transactions, and lists; define screenable datasets; test systems regularly for effectiveness (e.g., immediate freezing, accurate hits).
Provide documented training to relevant staff on sanctions, institutional exposure, and internal processes.
Establish processes for immediate action on matches: suspend transfers, freeze assets, report to Ministry of Finance/CSSF/FIU without delay; maintain whitelists only under strict conditions.

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement critical

August 13th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Republik Irak

Das Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (SECO) hat eine Änderung des Anhangs der Verordnung vom 7. August 1990 über Wirtschaftsmassnahmen gegenüber der Republik Irak (SR 946.206) publiziert.

AI Analysis

The Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) published an updated sanctions notification on August 13, 2025, reflecting modifications to the UN sanctions list targeting Iraq under the Ordinance of August 7, 1990 (SR 946.206). This update is automatically applicable in Switzerland and requires immediate compliance by all financial institutions and regulated entities, as Switzerland implements UN Security Council sanctions lists without delay through its automatic application framework.

What Changed

The UN Sanctions Committee modified the list of sanctioned individuals, companies, and organizations subject to Iraq-related sanctions on August 5, 2025. The specific modifications to the sanctions list were incorporated into Switzerland's SESAM database (SECO Sanctions Management), which serves as the authoritative sanctions reference for Swiss compliance purposes. Under Switzerland's automatic application ordinance adopted by the Federal Council on March 4, 2016, amendments to UN Security Council sanctions lists enter into force in Switzerland without delay.

Suggested Considerations

*Update screening systems immediately - Integrate the August 5, 2025 modifications into transaction monitoring and customer due diligence systems
*Review existing customer relationships - Screen all current customers, counterparties, and beneficial owners against the updated SESAM database
*Audit transaction history - Identify any transactions processed between August 5-13, 2025 that may have involved newly sanctioned parties
*Document compliance procedures - Maintain records demonstrating implementation of updated sanctions screening
*Train compliance staff - Ensure all relevant personnel understand the updated sanctions list and screening requirements

Key Dates

August 5, 2025

- UN Sanctions Committee decision modifying the Iraq sanctions list

August 13, 2025

- SECO published the updated sanctions notification and SESAM database modifications

Immediate

- Effective date in Switzerland (automatic application upon UN modification)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: CRITICAL

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Reporting & Disclosure Operational Resilience / Outsourcing

BankPayment ProviderAll Firms

Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking Investment Management

🇨🇭 FINMA Enforcement high

August 13th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: Russland

Das Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat die Erweiterung der Sanktionslisten betreffend Russland publiziert. Die Schweiz hat damit diverse Änderungen übernommen, welche die EU im Rahmen ihres 18. Sanktionspakets beschlossen hatte.

AI Analysis

This FINMA publication announces Switzerland's adoption of the EU's 18th sanctions package against Russia, expanding the sanctions lists with new designations and restrictions via the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO/WBF). It matters because Swiss financial institutions must immediately screen and freeze assets of newly listed parties, aligning with heightened FINMA enforcement on Russia sanctions risks amid ongoing geopolitical tensions. Compliance teams face elevated legal, reputational, and secondary sanctions exposure from US/EU measures.

What Changed

The core update involves Switzerland incorporating EU Council decisions from the 18th sanctions package, which typically include:
Additions to asset freeze lists targeting Russian individuals, entities, and sectors like energy, finance, and dual-use goods.
Expanded prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available to designated parties.
Alignment with EU sectoral restrictions on Russia's financial messaging services (e.g., SPFS), oil trade, and shadow fleet activities, now binding in Switzerland via ordinances updated by WBF/SECO.

Suggested Considerations

Enhance customer due diligence (CDD): Review existing Russia/Ukraine portfolios for matches; implement enhanced monitoring for shadow fleet, oil traders, and FIMI-linked entities.
Report to FINMA/SECO: Notify of any frozen assets or potential breaches; document compliance efforts to mitigate enforcement risks.
Update policies: Integrate EU 18th package into internal sanctions frameworks, including red flags for circumvention (e.g., crypto, third-country banks).
Train staff: Conduct urgent refreshers on secondary sanctions risks per FINMA Risk Monitor 2025.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

On July 31, 2025, Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) amended the annex to the Syria Asset Freezing Ordinance (SR 196.127.27), originally enacted March 7, 2025, to update the list of designated individuals subject to comprehensive asset freezes. This amendment reflects Switzerland's ongoing implementation of targeted financial sanctions against politically exposed persons connected to the former Assad regime, requiring immediate compliance from all financial intermediaries and asset holders operating in Swiss jurisdiction.

What Changed

The July 31, 2025 amendment modified the annex (list of designated persons) to the Syria Asset Freezing Ordinance without altering the substantive freezing requirements themselves. The original ordinance, enacted March 7, 2025, froze all assets of 17 designated individuals; the July amendment adjusted this list, though the specific names added or removed are not detailed in the available regulatory notices. The amendment operates under the Federal Act on the Freezing and Restitution of Illicit Assets held by Foreign Politically Exposed Persons (FIAA; SR 196.1), which provides the legal...

Suggested Considerations

*Immediate compliance steps for financial institutions:
*Update sanctions screening systems to reflect the amended annex list as of July 31, 2025
*Freeze all assets of newly designated individuals without delay, including bank accounts, securities, real estate, and other property of any kind
*File mandatory reports with the Money Laundering Reporting Office (MROS) for all frozen assets under Article 3 of the FIAA
*Conduct enhanced due diligence on existing client relationships to identify any connections to designated persons or their family members, associates, or controlled entities

Key Dates

March 7, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

– Original Syria Asset Freezing Ordinance entered into force

July 31, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

– Amendment to annex (list of designated persons) entered into force

Ongoing

– Immediate freezing obligation upon designation; no grace period applies

Four

year validity; – The ordinance remains valid for four years from March 7, 2025, unless extended or modified

Compliance Impact

Urgency: CRITICAL

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FINMA source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 30th 2025

Global situation of undertakings for collective investment at the end of June 2025

Press release 25/12

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

🇱🇺 CSSF News

July 24th 2025

Active account notification under Article 7a(1) of EMIR

No description available.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

July 22nd 2025

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a Danish investment bank for breaches of professional obligations committed by a French branch

Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Disclosure Obligations Other professionals Journalists The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a Danish investment bank for breaches of professional obligations committed by a French branch

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee imposed a €300,000 fine on Saxo Bank A/S on 16 July 2025 for multiple breaches of professional obligations committed through its French branch, including failures to properly inform clients about significant changes to derivatives procedures, margin calculations, and securities transaction incidents, as well as deficiencies in equity savings plan (PEA) transfers. This enforcement action demonstrates the AMF's active oversight of cross-border investment banks operating in France and highlights critical gaps in client disclosure practices that compliance teams must address.

What Changed

The enforcement decision does not introduce new regulatory requirements but rather clarifies existing obligations under current French financial regulations.
Client notification requirements for significant procedural changes affecting derivatives trading and margin calculations
Incident disclosure obligations for securities transactions that could materially affect order execution
Timely information provision regarding regulatory consequences of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union as they affect PEA accounts
Operational procedures for managing equity savings plan transfers with proper documentation and client communication

Suggested Considerations

*Audit client notification procedures for derivatives trading changes, particularly regarding position closure procedures and margin calculation methodologies, ensuring clients receive advance notice of material changes
*Implement incident reporting protocols for securities transactions that could affect order execution, with documented evidence of timely client notification
*Review PEA transfer procedures to ensure compliance with regulatory timeframes and proper documentation of information provided to clients regarding Brexit-related consequences
*Strengthen information governance to ensure all material operational changes are communicated to clients within required timeframes and with appropriate detail
*Conduct compliance training for front-office and operations staff on professional obligations regarding client communication and information disclosure

Key Dates

On 3 July 2025, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA launched the consultations on the new Ordinances on the Risk Diversification of Banks and Securities Firms and on the Liquidity of Banks and Securities Firms. The consultations will go on until 29 September 2025.

Deadline: 29 September 2025

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Operational Resilience / Outsourcing Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerAsset Manager

Banking & Credit Capital Markets & Trading Crypto & Digital Assets

🇬🇧 BoE Speech

June 26th 2025

From trading floors to policy calls: the value and evolution of our interactions with financial markets − speech by Andrea Rosen

Given at the Centre for Central Banking Studies 'Transforming monetary policy’ conference

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Technology & Cyber Reporting & Disclosure

BankBroker DealerCrypto Exchange

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇱🇺 CSSF News low

June 26th 2025

Profit and loss account of credit institutions as at 31 March 2025

Press release 25/10

Sectors:

Topics:

Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

Bank

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇨🇭 FINMA News medium

June 19th 2025

Aktualisierte Sanktionsmeldung: ISIL (Da'esh) / Al-Kaida

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Prudential / Capital Requirements Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇫🇷 AMF News

June 18th 2025

The ACPR and AMF Joint Unit for Insurance, Banking and Retail Investment has published its 2024 Annual Report

Annual report Savings protection Marketing Retail investors Journalists The ACPR and AMF Joint Unit for Insurance, Banking and Retail Investment has published its 2024 Annual Report

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

BankAsset ManagerInsurance

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement medium

June 17th 2025

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an issuer €20,000 and its shareholders a total of €1.7 million

Sanctions & settlements MAR Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an issuer €20,000 and its shareholders a total of €1.7 million

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee imposed fines totaling €1.72 million on 10 June 2025 against SMCP (an issuer) and its major shareholders European TopSoho, Dynamic Treasure Group, and Ms. Chenran Qiu for breaches including failure to report threshold crossings in shareholdings, disseminating false or misleading information constituting market manipulation, and SMCP's lapse in maintaining inside information confidentiality. This decision underscores AMF's rigorous enforcement of **Market Abuse Regulation (MAR)** obligations on issuers and shareholders, serving as a deterrent against opaque share transactions and premature disclosures that undermine market integrity. Compliance teams should prioritize robust monitoring of ownership changes and information controls to avoid similar sanctions, which can reach seven figures for individuals and entities.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not a regulatory change introducing new rules; it reinforces existing obligations under French financial markets law and MAR:
Shareholder reporting thresholds: Mandatory notification to AMF and issuers for crossing above or below capital/voting rights thresholds, plus six-month plans.
Prohibition on false/misleading information: Press releases denying control over entities when factual arrangements prove otherwise qualify as market manipulation.
Inside information confidentiality: Issuers must prevent premature public access to sensitive releases, even unintentionally. No new requirements were enacted; the decision clarifies application to...

Suggested Considerations

Shareholders: Implement automated threshold monitoring systems; file timely declarations (immediately upon crossing, with six-month plans) via AMF portal. Document all share transfers, including indirect control via trusts/companies.
Issuers: Secure pre-publication access to financial releases (e.g., website password protection); conduct pre-release audits. Train IR teams on confidentiality protocols.
All firms: Review governance for personal attribution risks; audit recent disclosures for misleading statements. Enhance MAR compliance training, focusing on complex ownership structures.
Immediate: If involved in similar transactions (2016-2021 period referenced), self-assess and remediate reporting gaps.

Key Dates

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; this is an enforcement decision applying existing AMF rules on mandatory takeover bids under the General Regulation (RGAMF), particularly Articles 234-2 et seq. Key requirements include: filing a draft offer with the AMF for compliance review within 10 trading days; mandatory cash offers at the highest price paid by the offeror (alone or in concert) in the prior 12 months; adherence to principles of free play of bids, equal treatment, transparency, market integrity, fairness, and competition.

Suggested Considerations

File draft takeover bid immediately: Submit to AMF with price details (highest 12-month price, cash only), intent on squeeze-out, and supporting documents.
Appoint independent appraiser: Mandatory if squeeze-out planned; fairness statement required.
Inform AMF and publish: Disclose filing; adhere to trading restrictions during pre-offer/offer periods.
Prepare target response: Entreprendre to file draft reply document, potentially involving works council.
Monitor thresholds: Ongoing vigilance for 30% voting rights or 1% 12-month crossings by any party.

Key Dates

Within 4 DEADLINE

6 weeks of triggering event; - Danae Group must file draft takeover bid (practice standard; exact trigger date not specified in publication)

10 trading days from offer period start DEADLINE

- AMF reviews draft for compliance and issues visa (extendable if appraiser or works council involved, min. 5 trading days post-target reply)

Pre

offer period (post-announcement); - Strict trading rules apply; offeror may acquire shares until opening, with restrictions

Offer period

- From AMF filing notice to results publication; minimum success threshold 50% (waivable by AMF)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - Immediate filing obligation for Danae Group risks escalation to sanctions if ignored; for others, it signals AMF's proactive enforcement, heightening scrutiny on share acquisitions in listed firms. Matters due to potential market disruption, shareholder protection mandates, and precedent for rapid intervention (e.g., visa timelines enforce orderly processes).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Reporting & Disclosure Market Abuse / Surveillance Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Insurance & Pensions

🇺🇸 FINRA regulatory_notice medium

May 15th 2025

Market infrastructures Innovation Europe & international Cooperation Other professionals Market Infrastructures Journalists Investment management companies The French and Italian authorities make proposals for a more competitive...

AI Analysis

The French (AMF) and Italian (Consob) financial authorities have jointly proposed amendments to the EU's DLT Pilot Regime to increase its competitiveness and attract market participants. The Pilot Regime, which became operational in March 2023, has underperformed with only three authorized infrastructures and minimal live trading activity, prompting regulators to recommend structural changes including greater proportionality, expanded eligible instruments, and raised activity thresholds.

What Changed

The proposed amendments address the Pilot Regime's limited uptake by introducing the following regulatory modifications: Scope Expansion
Expand eligible financial instruments from current restrictions to all financial assets
Remove categorical limitations that previously restricted participation Activity Thresholds
Raise activity thresholds from €6 billion to €100 billion
Introduce greater proportionality based on project scale, allowing smaller players simplified requirements Operational Flexibility

Suggested Considerations

*For Market Infrastructure Operators:
*Reassess Business Cases: Evaluate viability under revised €100 billion thresholds and expanded instrument eligibility
*Prepare Applications: Organizations previously excluded by €6 billion threshold should prepare authorization applications under new proportionality framework
*Monitor Commission Decisions: Track European Commission's response to ESMA report (expected Q2 2026) for final regulatory direction
*Compliance Documentation: Prepare operational and technical documentation demonstrating alignment with revised requirements

Key Dates

March 2023

- Pilot Regime became operational

April 9, 2025

Anti-money Laundering Asset management AMF invites financial market participants to take part in the EBA consultation on draft AML/CFT implementing standards

AI Analysis

The AMF is urging French financial market participants to engage in the EBA's consultation launched on March 6, 2025, on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) for AML/CFT implementing standards under AMLD6 and AMLR, focusing on harmonized risk assessment methodologies for supervisors and obliged entities. This matters because it signals a shift to uniform EU-wide AML/CFT supervision via AMLA (post-EBA handover on January 1, 2026), requiring firms to adapt to standardized risk indicators, data reporting, and enforcement, with new CDD rules applying from July 2027. Participation ensures firms influence final standards amid the transition to a single EU AML rulebook.

What Changed

The draft RTS propose harmonized methodologies for AML/CFT supervision, including:
Risk Assessment of Obliged Entities (Article 40(2) AMLD6): A three-step process with indicators for inherent risk (customers, products/services, geography, distribution channels), control...
Risk Assessment for Direct Supervision (Article 12(7) AMLAR): Two-stage selection for AMLA direct oversight of high-risk cross-border firms (operating in ≥6 Member States, meeting...
CDD Updates: Risk-based approach for new customers from July 2027; five-year transition for existing customers, prioritizing high-risk.
Pecuniary Sanctions RTS (Article 53(10) AMLD6): Structured classification of breaches, proportionate sanctions, and enforcement for serious/repeated/systematic infringements to ensure uniformity...

Suggested Considerations

Participate in EBA consultation: Submit feedback on draft RTS via EBA channels, focusing on risk indicators, data frequency, and feasibility; AMF encourages French firms to act promptly.
Conduct compliance gap analysis: Review current AML frameworks against proposed indicators (inherent risk, controls, residual risk); prioritize high-risk customers/products.
Enhance systems: Invest in regtech for automated risk scoring, transaction monitoring, and data reporting to supervisors; update governance, policies, and CDD processes.
Prepare for AMLA supervision: For cross-border firms, model group-wide risk profiles; develop remediation plans for breaches.
Ongoing monitoring: Implement annual risk reviews and ad-hoc reassessments for business changes.

Key Dates

March 6, 2025

EBA consultation launch; on draft RTS for AML/CFT standards (ongoing as of analysis)

January 1, 2026

Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines Pharnext and its former directors a total of €800,000

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined Pharnext €500,000 and its former directors Daniel Cohen (€200,000) and David Horn Solomon (€100,000) on 20 January 2025 for failing to disclose inside information promptly and disseminating false or misleading information about FDA interactions for a drug candidate. This enforcement action reinforces AMF's strict stance on market abuse rules under EU MAR, highlighting personal liability for directors in listed biotech firms where investor expectations around product approvals are high. Compliance teams should note it as a reminder of timely disclosure obligations, especially amid appeals filed by the parties.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement decision applying existing obligations under the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), specifically:
Article 17 MAR: Requirement to disclose inside information as soon as possible (breached by Pharnext's delays from 10 April 2019 and non-disclosure from 28 October 2020).
Article 12(1)(c) MAR: Prohibition on disseminating false or misleading information that could affect market prices, via press releases and shareholder letters overstating FDA progress. No new rules...

Suggested Considerations

Review inside information policies: Ensure protocols flag regulatory feedback (e.g., FDA requests) as inside information and mandate immediate public disclosure via official channels.
Audit communications: Screen press releases, shareholder letters for optimistic language on approvals; implement pre-issuance legal/compliance sign-off.
Director training: Conduct MAR-specific training on personal liability for disclosure failures; document decision trails.
Monitor appeals: Track Paris Court of Appeal outcomes, as upheld fines could set precedents for biotech disclosures.
wide actions mandated beyond general MAR compliance, but proactive gap analysis recommended.

Key Dates

10 April 2019

- FDA request for additional study deemed inside information; not disclosed until 30 August 2019

28 October 2020

Sanctions & settlements MAR Other professionals Executive & other private individuals Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a US investment fund and its director a total of €10 million for price manipulation during an initial public offering...

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined US-based investment fund EcoR1 Capital €7 million and its director Oleg Nodelman €3 million (total €10 million) on 13 December 2024 for price manipulation via "marking the close" trades on Euronext Paris during Innate Pharma's 2019 Nasdaq IPO, plus reporting failures on 5% ownership thresholds. This case demonstrates AMF's extraterritorial reach over foreign actors impacting French markets and underscores personal liability for executives in market abuse violations under MAR.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not a regulatory change; it reinforces existing MAR prohibitions on price manipulation (Article 12), specifically "fixing the price at an abnormal or artificial level" through timed sales at market close to influence linked ADS pricing on Nasdaq. It also highlights ongoing scrutiny of reporting obligations under Article L. 233-7 of the French Commercial Code for crossing 5% thresholds in listed companies.

Suggested Considerations

Implement pre-trade surveillance for "marking the close" patterns, especially around issuer events like IPOs where Euronext closes influence external pricing.
Enhance 5% threshold monitoring with automated alerts and timely filings (4 trading days post-threshold).
Conduct senior manager training on personal liability under MAR for manipulative orders benefiting the firm (e.g., lower ADS subscription as largest subscriber).
Review cross-border trading policies for French-listed assets, including jurisdiction assessments for non-EU funds.
Perform gap analysis on order timing controls to flag end-of-day volume spikes.

Key Dates

October 10

Sanctions & settlements Disclosure Obligations Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee imposes fines totalling €4,150,000 on four legal entities and three natural persons for disseminating false or misleading information, and price manipulation

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee imposed fines totaling €4,150,000 on December 11, 2024, against Auplata (an issuer), its former CEO Didier Tamagno, statutory auditors RSM Paris and Stéphane Marie (€50,000-€300,000 range), and fund entities European High Growth Opportunities Manco SA, Alpha Blue Ocean Inc., and director Pierre Vannineuse (€1,000,000-€1,500,000 range) for disseminating false or misleading information in press releases and financial statements, plus share price manipulation via unauthorized sales. This decision underscores the AMF's rigorous enforcement of market abuse rules under French financial regulations, serving as a critical reminder for issuers, auditors, and investment managers to ensure transparent disclosure of financing terms and compliance with share disposal commitments, with appeals already lodged at the Paris Court of Appeal.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action, not a regulatory change; it reinforces existing obligations under AMF rules prohibiting false/misleading information (e.g., omitting key clauses in financing agreements like ODIRNANEs with BSAs, failing to disclose earn-outs or include them in going concern analyses) and price manipulation (e.g., breaching share retention and daily sales volume limits).

Suggested Considerations

Review disclosure practices: Audit press releases and financial statements for complete disclosure of financing terms, especially dilutive clauses (e.g., earn-outs, conversion mechanics in ODIRNANEs/BSAs); include in going concern assessments.
Enhance auditor coordination: Ensure statutory auditors verify all material risks before issuing unqualified opinions; document diligence on issuer disclosures.
Strengthen trading controls: For funds/managers, implement pre-trade checks on share sales against retention/volume commitments; monitor portfolio compliance with public undertakings.
Training and policies: Update internal policies, conduct staff training on market abuse (MAR-equivalent rules), and perform gap analyses against this case; simulate disclosure scenarios.
Monitor appeals: Track Paris Court of Appeal proceedings for potential precedent shifts (https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news-releases/enforcement-committee-news-releases/amf-enforcement-committee-imposes-fines-totalling-eu4150000-four-legal-entities-and-three-natural).

Key Dates

What Changed

- EFRAG and the European Commission have published specific implementation guidance and FAQs to operationalize CSRD reporting using ESRS, focusing on double materiality assessments, climate...
CSRD replaces the NFRD with broader scope (quadrupling affected companies to ~50,000), mandatory digital tagging (ESEF/XBRL), limited third-party assurance (phasing to reasonable), and integrated...
Recent amendments defer timelines for certain waves, adjust scope thresholds, add exemptions, cap value-chain disclosures, and refine assurance standards.

Suggested Considerations

Review EFRAG/EC guidance and FAQs for ESRS implementation; conduct double materiality assessment to identify material ESG topics.
Map and collect ESG data (GHG emissions Scope 1-3, value-chain impacts) with audit trails; develop Paris-aligned transition plans.
Integrate sustainability into management reports with digital tagging (XBRL/ESEF); secure limited third-party assurance.
Strengthen data governance, test processes, and monitor updates from EFRAG/EC/AMF.

Key Dates

2025

- First wave (NFRD reporters: large listed/public interest entities >500 employees) publish CSRD reports for FY2024

2026

- Large EU companies (previously planned for FY2025) deferred to 2028 for FY2027 reporting

2028

- Listed SMEs report for FY2026 (deferred from 2027)

2029

- Final wave including certain non-EU firms; CSDDD applies from July 26, 2029

Compliance Impact

Urgency: High - With first reports due in 2025 for ~11,000 firms and preparations critical for 2026+ waves, non-compliance risks enforcement, reputational damage, and investor scrutiny. Deferred timelines offer breathing room but demand immediate data readiness amid evolving standards and assurance mandates.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankInsurance

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

September 19th 2024

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines Sogenial Immobilier and its chairman a total of €180,000

Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment management companies The AMF Enforcement Committee fines Sogenial Immobilier and its chairman a total of €180,000

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee issued a €180,000 combined fine against Sogenial Immobilier (€150,000) and its chairman Jean-Marie Souclier (€30,000) on September 12, 2024, for systematic breaches of professional obligations spanning investment selection, regulatory disclosure, conflict of interest management, and anti-money laundering compliance. This enforcement action demonstrates the AMF's heightened scrutiny of asset managers' operational controls and substantive compliance with fund governance requirements, particularly regarding real estate investment companies (SCPIs).

What Changed

The decision does not introduce new regulatory requirements but rather clarifies enforcement expectations across existing obligations:
Regulatory Documentation Standards: Asset managers must implement documented procedures governing the preparation of all regulatory and marketing materials for alternative investment funds, with...
Investment Due Diligence Standards: A "high standard of diligence" is required when selecting investments, with formal investment procedures that must be consistently followed and documented.
Conflict of Interest Management: Specific controls must address conflicts in asset allocation decisions, with documented decision-making processes that demonstrate conflict mitigation.
AML/CFT Implementation: Anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism procedures must be applied comprehensively to both fund-level investments and individual client subscriptions,...

Suggested Considerations

*Audit Existing Procedures: Review and document all procedures governing regulatory and marketing materials for alternative investment funds, ensuring they address risk disclosure accuracy and asset return reporting requirements.
*Formalize Investment Selection Process: Document and implement investment selection procedures that demonstrate application of "high standard of diligence," including documented investment committee decisions, due diligence checklists, and approval workflows.
*Enhance Conflict of Interest Controls: Map all potential conflicts in asset allocation decisions and implement specific controls (e.g., segregation of duties, documented approvals, independent review) for each identified conflict scenario.
*Implement Comprehensive AML/CFT: Extend AML/CFT procedures to cover both fund-level investments and individual client subscriptions, with documented customer due diligence, beneficial ownership verification, and transaction monitoring.
*Strengthen Internal Control Functions: Establish or enhance internal audit/compliance functions with documented monitoring controls covering investments, conflicts of interest, and AML/CFT, with regular reporting to management and governance bodies.

Key Dates

September 12, 2024

- AMF Enforcement Committee issued the decision

September 16, 2024

- Public announcement of sanctions

No specified deadline DEADLINE

- Appeal period remains open (appeals may be lodged against the decision)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

AML / Financial Crime Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset Manager

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement medium

July 30th 2024

AMF Enforcement Committee fines Biosynex, its CEO and several of its directors a total of €930,000

Sanctions & settlements Disclosure Obligations Journalists AMF Enforcement Committee fines Biosynex, its CEO and several of its directors a total of €930,000

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined Biosynex and four directors (plus their holding companies) a total of €930,000 on 25 July 2024 for breaches including selective disclosure of inside information via a CEO interview, insider trading by selling shares on non-public knowledge of a treasury share sale, and failures to report share transactions to the AMF. This matters as it reinforces AMF's strict enforcement of MAR (Market Abuse Regulation) rules on information dissemination, insider dealing, and PDMR reporting, serving as a precedent for listed companies and executives during high-volatility periods like COVID-19. Appeals by some parties were dismissed as inadmissible by the Paris Court of Appeal on 9 January 2025.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not a regulatory change; it applies existing requirements under EU MAR (Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, transposed in France) and AMF rules:
Selective disclosure: Issuers must ensure "full and effective" public dissemination of inside information via press releases before any selective sharing (e.g., interviews); partial disclosure to a...
Insider trading: Prohibits trading (including selling) by insiders possessing inside information, such as unreleased plans to sell treasury shares, which could impact share price.
Reporting obligations: Directors and holding companies must report transactions in issuer shares to AMF within 3 business days under Article 19 MAR; repeated failures (citing broker delays) were...

Suggested Considerations

Implement pre-approval for executive media interactions: Require scripts/press releases issued simultaneously with interviews to avoid selective disclosure.
Enhance insider lists and trading controls: Block trading during closed periods or on inside info; mandate pre-clearance for PDMRs/holdings.
Automate transaction reporting: Ensure PDMRs register for real-time broker confirmations and file AMF reports within 3 business days; train on personal accountability.
Conduct MAR training refreshers: Focus on inside info identification (e.g., product launch timelines) and COVID-era precedents.
Audit past disclosures: Review 2020-2021 communications for similar selective leaks.

Key Dates

25 July 2024

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision issuing fines

9 January 2025

- Paris Court of Appeal dismisses appeals by CEO Abensur, CFO Fraenckel, and ALA Financière as inadmissible (case n° 24/16188)

March

April 2020; - Violation period (interview on 20 March 2020; share sales and unreported transactions)

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Not a new rule but a high-profile enforcement (€930k total: Biosynex €50k; CEO/holding €460k; others €70k-€230k each) highlighting personal liability for executives, with appeals failing. Matters for listed firms as it stresses "full/effective" dissemination and rejects operational excuses, increasing MAR fine risks amid ongoing AMF scrutiny of market abuse (e.g., similar 2025 asset manager fine).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

All Firms

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF News

July 30th 2024

The AMF publishes its 2023 CSR Report

AMF activity Institutional The AMF publishes its 2023 CSR Report

Sectors:

Topics:

ESG Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

July 25th 2024

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an issuer and two of its former directors at the time of the facts for market manipulation by disseminating false or misleading information. It also fined one of the directors for insider trading breaches

Sanctions & settlements Disclosure Obligations Professional investors The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an issuer and two of its former directors at the time of the facts for market manipulation by disseminating false or misleading information. It also fined one of the directors for insider...

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee imposed fines on an issuer and two former directors for market manipulation via dissemination of false or misleading information, with an additional fine on one director for insider trading violations. This enforcement action underscores the AMF's rigorous enforcement of market abuse rules under the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), serving as a stark reminder of personal and corporate liability for disclosure failures and privileged information misuse. Compliance teams must prioritize robust controls to mitigate similar risks, as such violations erode market integrity and investor trust.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision rather than new legislation, so there are no direct regulatory changes. It reinforces existing obligations under Book VI of the AMF General Regulation on market abuse, including insider dealing and market manipulation, aligned with Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (MAR). Key principles upheld include prohibitions on disseminating false/misleading information that impacts security prices and trading on inside information, with no novel requirements but heightened emphasis on director accountability.

Suggested Considerations

Implement or strengthen disclosure controls to ensure all public information is accurate and non-misleading, with pre-approval for promotional materials submitted to AMF.
Enhance insider lists and training for directors on MAR prohibitions, including trading blackouts before announcements.
Deploy surveillance systems to detect market manipulation signals, with compliance officers mandated to report suspicious transactions to AMF.
Conduct due diligence attestations for prospectuses/public offers, confirming no material omissions.
Review governance for personal liability, including cooperation incentives in investigations per proposed AMF powers.

Key Dates

What Changed

No new regulatory changes are introduced; the FAQs provide interpretive guidance on existing 29LEC requirements from the Energy and Climate Law (8 November 2019) and implementing Decree (29 May...
Scope of application: Defines entities required to report on ESG integration (e.g., portfolio asset management companies, ISPs).
Consolidation rules: How to aggregate data across group entities.
Interactions with EU rules: Alignment with SFDR, including narrative reports and standardized annexes to ACPR (insurers) or AMF (portfolio managers/banks).

Suggested Considerations

Read and implement French Treasury FAQs: Review scope, consolidation, and EU alignment for reporting accuracy (access via Ministry website under AMF's "read more").
Update 29LEC reports: Ensure narrative covers nine mandated topics; submit standardized annexes to ACPR (insurers) or AMF (asset managers/banks).
Integrate clarifications: Adjust governance, risk assessment (e.g., biodiversity), and ESG metrics tracing for compliance, using tools like attribution methods.
Monitor CTH: Use ADEME/Sustainable Finance Observatory analyses for benchmarking and improvements.

Key Dates

Deadline: 15 April 2024

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager

Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement medium

January 30th 2024

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines seven people, four for price manipulation and three for failing to comply with reporting obligations

Sanctions & settlements Disclosure Obligations Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines seven people, four for price manipulation and three for failing to comply with reporting obligations

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerWealth Manager

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

January 18th 2024

The AMF publishes its action plan and supervisory priorities for 2024

Strategy Supervision Institutional Other professionals Executive & other private individuals Fintech Market Infrastructures Post-trade Infrastructures Professional investors Journalists Investment services...

Sectors:

Technology & Cyber Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerFintech

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

December 27th 2023

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a former manager of a listed company for failing to disclose inside information as soon as possible and for failing to disclose major shareholdings

Sanctions & settlements Disclosure Obligations Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a former manager of a listed company for failing to disclose inside information as soon as possible and for failing to disclose major shareholdings

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee imposed a fine on a former manager of a listed company for two violations: failing to disclose inside information to the public as soon as possible under Article 17 of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), and failing to disclose major shareholdings as required by French regulations. This enforcement action underscores the AMF's strict enforcement of market abuse rules, emphasizing personal accountability for executives in ensuring timely transparency to prevent insider trading risks and maintain market integrity. Compliance teams should review it as a reminder of heightened scrutiny on disclosure delays and threshold crossings.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement decision reinforcing existing obligations under MAR and AMF General Regulation:
Inside information disclosure: Issuers must publicly disclose inside information "as soon as possible" per Article 17 MAR, unless specific delay conditions are met (legitimate interest,...
Major shareholdings disclosure: Persons crossing legal or statutory thresholds in listed companies must declare to the issuer and AMF promptly, based on Article L.
Supporting rules include Article 315-1 AMF GR mandating "information barriers" (walls) for investment firms to control inside information circulation, prohibiting unauthorized disclosure except under...

Suggested Considerations

Implement/maintain information barriers per Article 315-1 AMF GR: Identify inside info holders, physically separate entities, prohibit unauthorized disclosure (notify compliance officer for exceptions), and log cross-entity assistance.
Assess information promptly: Disclose inside info "as soon as possible" or delay only if all three MAR conditions met; notify AMF post-delay.
Declare major shareholdings immediately upon threshold crossing to issuer/AMF; ensure custodians comply with identity disclosure requests.
Use professional information providers for dissemination to ensure wide, secure EU reach; archive on company website.
Train executives on insider lists, transaction reporting (within 3 days if >€20k/year), and penalties (up to €100m fines, criminal sanctions).

Key Dates

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision rather than new regulatory changes, reinforcing existing requirements under MAR (Regulation (EU) No 596/2014), transposed into AMF's General Regulation (Book VI on market abuse). It highlights prohibitions on market manipulation (e.g., disseminating false or misleading information or engaging in fictitious transactions to influence prices) and mandatory reporting of shareholdings crossing 5% thresholds or changes therein for listed issuers.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct internal audits: Review past and current communications, trading patterns, and disclosures for manipulation risks or unreported positions.
Enhance monitoring systems: Implement surveillance for market abuse, including automated tools for detecting unusual trading or information dissemination.
Train personnel: Educate directors, compliance teams, and traders on MAR prohibitions and reporting thresholds; report suspicions via AMF forms.
Update policies: Ensure prompt filing of threshold declarations (e.g., within 4 trading days for >5% holdings) and consistency with prospectus rules.
Cooperate with regulators: Prepare for AMF investigations, leveraging potential penalty reductions for early cooperation as per emerging powers.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee sanctioned listed company Rallye and its former CEO Franck Hattab for market manipulation via dissemination of false or misleading information about Rallye's liquidity position on 11 occasions across 14 communications from March 2018 to May 2019, in violation of Articles 12.1(c), 12.4, and 15 of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). Rallye was fined €25 million and Hattab €1 million due to the repetition of breaches, prior AMF warnings, and potential investor harm from artificially inflated share prices. This case matters as it demonstrates AMF's aggressive enforcement of MAR disclosure rules, holding both issuers and senior executives personally liable for financial communications that misrepresent key risks like liquidity.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not a regulatory change; it reinforces existing MAR requirements prohibiting dissemination of false or misleading information likely to artificially affect financial instrument prices. Key interpretations include: (i) describing liquidity as "solid" or "very solid" despite dependency on volatile subsidiary (Casino) shares and hidden risks (e.g., €400-600M liquidity shortfall, concealed loans) constitutes manipulation; (ii) issuers are strictly responsible for communications by representatives like CEOs; (iii) repetition across multiple media (e.g.,...

Suggested Considerations

Review historical/current financial communications for liquidity/debt portrayals; ensure they explicitly address dependencies (e.g., on subsidiary performance) and avoid unqualified positives like "solid liquidity" amid volatility.
Enhance governance: Implement pre-approval processes for CEO/issuer statements on material risks; document awareness of true risk profiles.
Training: Senior managers regime-style programs on MAR personal liability for misleading info, emphasizing repetition risks.
Audit trails: Maintain evidence of internal deliberations on disclosures to defend against "knew or should have known" findings.
Monitor appeals: Track Rallye's challenge, as outcomes may clarify MAR scope (e.g., https://www.marketscreener.com/insider/FRANCK-HATTAB-A1NUTV/ for updates).

Key Dates

September 18

Periodic & ongoing disclosures Sustainable Finance Regulatory developments The AMF responds to the European Commission’s public consultation on the draft European sustainability reporting standards

AI Analysis

The AMF's response to the European Commission's public consultation advocates for simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the CSRD, emphasizing retained quality in climate reporting, interoperability with ISSB standards, and proportionality while opposing overly complex materiality assessments. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals upcoming ESRS revisions that could reduce reporting burdens but maintain investor-focused disclosures, influencing 2026-2028 sustainability statements for listed firms and financial institutions. https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/amf-responds-european-commissions-public-consultation-draft-european-sustainability-reporting

What Changed

- Simplified ESRS Structure: EFRAG's draft reduces mandatory datapoints by 57-71% and ESRS length by 55%, focusing on materiality, fair presentation, and quantitative data while streamlining double...
Materiality Assessment: AMF opposes assessing impact materiality post-mitigation (prefers "gross" approach for relevance and consistency) but supports specifying impacts, risks, or opportunities per...
Climate Reporting: AMF regrets removal of "net-zero" target definition (requiring 90-95% gross GHG reduction trajectory) and seeks harmonization for financial actors; supports Option 1 for...
Reporting Reliefs: Introduces "undue costs or efforts" exemptions (e.g., for metrics except Scope 3 GHG), with AMF recommending time-bound limits; further simplification proposed for social metrics...
Interoperability: AMF stresses alignment with ISSB, accepting some EU-specific divergences for simplification.

Suggested Considerations

Review and refresh double materiality assessments using "gross" impacts, specifying risks/opportunities per topic.
Retain "net-zero" definitions in climate plans if used; prepare quantitative climate financial effects data (Option 1).
Evaluate "undue costs" reliefs for non-climate metrics, documenting with time-bound justifications.
Monitor EFRAG/EC updates post-November 2025; test voluntary simplified ESRS in 2026 cycles.

Key Dates

July 31, 2025

EFRAG submits simplified ESRS draft for consultation. https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/corporate-sustainability-reporting-amfs-response-efrags-consultation-simplification-european

September 29, 2025

Sanctions & settlements Journalists Investment services providers By two decisions, the AMF Enforcement Committee fines two investment services providers for breaches of their professional obligations

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee issued two decisions on 19 June 2023 fining Crédit Industriel et Commercial (€1 million) and Banque CIC Sud-Ouest (€250,000) for breaches of professional obligations in investment advisory services, including inadequate suitability assessments, client classification procedures, marketing of unsuitable instruments, and insufficient controls on costs and fees. This matters because it underscores AMF's strict enforcement of MiFID II-derived obligations, signaling heightened scrutiny on operational systems for client protection and potential for substantial fines based on breach duration and scale.

What Changed

This is an enforcement action rather than new legislation, but it reinforces existing regulatory requirements under French Monetary and Financial Code and MiFID II transposition:
Obligation to implement an effective operational system for assessing investment suitability in advisory services.
Requirement for compliant client classification procedures aligned with regulations.
Duty to market only financial instruments suited to client profiles.
Mandate for effective control systems over investment advisory activities.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct immediate gap analysis of investment advisory processes against AMF expectations for suitability assessments, client classification, product matching, and control systems.
Enhance traceability and documentation of suitability checks, client categorizations, and cost disclosures to demonstrate operational effectiveness.
Review and strengthen internal procedures for marketing instruments, ensuring alignment with client profiles and regulatory marketing authorizations (cross-reference to similar past cases).
Implement or audit remedial measures, as considered in fine calculations, including staff training on professional obligations.
Test controls for providing clear cost information to clients, avoiding misleading disclosures.

Key Dates

BankInsurance

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF Consultation medium

March 28th 2023

The AMF presents its proposals to improve the readability of financial product fees in European law

Collective investments Shares The AMF presents its proposals to improve the readability of financial product fees in European law

AI Analysis

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF, France's financial markets authority) has proposed a new table for presenting subscription fees on financial instruments and an accompanying glossary to enhance investor readability and comparability, developed in collaboration with the Financial Sector Consultative Committee (FSCC) as input to the European Commission's Retail Investment Strategy. This matters because it targets reconciling MiFID 2 and PRIIPs disclosure requirements, which currently hinder clear fee communication, potentially influencing future EU-level amendments to improve retail investor protection without imposing new obligations.

What Changed

- Alternative Fee Presentation Table: A proposed redesigned table for displaying costs associated with subscribing to financial instruments, emphasizing investor understanding rather than adding a...
Glossary of Terms: A harmonized glossary defining key fee types, tested with non-professional investors using AMF consumer testing tools, to standardize terminology across professionals and aid...
No changes to fee calculation methodologies; focus is solely on presentation and terminology.

Suggested Considerations

Monitor and Respond: Review the proposed table and draft glossary (available in French); consider submitting feedback via FSCC or directly to European Commission consultations on Retail Investment Strategy.
Internal Review: Assess current MiFID 2/PRIIPs fee disclosures for compatibility with the proposed format; prepare for potential regulatory evolution by mapping existing presentations to the new table.
Testing and Training: Evaluate glossary integration into client communications; conduct internal consumer testing aligned with AMF tools if adopting early.
No immediate obligations, as this is a non-binding proposal requiring EU law changes.

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

January 3rd 2023

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines the British company H2O AM LLP and two of its executives at the time of the facts for several breaches of their professional obligations

Sanctions & settlements Journalists Investment management companies The AMF Enforcement Committee fines the British company H2O AM LLP and two of its executives at the time of the facts for several breaches of their professional obligations

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined UK asset manager H2O AM LLP €75 million and its executives Bruno Crastes (€15 million, plus a 5-year ban) and Vincent Chailley (€3 million) for breaches in managing French UCITS funds, including ineligible Tennor Group investments, liquidity risks, valuation failures, and non-compliance with investment ratios and counterparty limits. This matters as it underscores AMF's strict enforcement on UCITS eligibility, risk management, and prospectus adherence, with cross-border implications confirmed by the Conseil d'État's dismissal of appeals on 13 June 2025. It signals heightened scrutiny on illiquid, unrated assets and "buy & sell back" transactions for EU asset managers.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not new rules, but it reinforces existing UCITS requirements under French Monetary and Financial Code and AMF regulations:
UCITS investments must exclude illiquid, unrated securities outside prospectus scopes; liquidity risks must be properly assessed to ensure redemption capabilities.
Debt holdings per issuer capped at 10%; counterparty exposure (e.g., 5% limit) must include all relevant transactions like buy & sell backs.
Reliable valuation information required; risks of unwinding transactions at market value must be evaluated. These align with parallel FCA findings on due diligence failures for Tennor investments...

Suggested Considerations

Review portfolios: Audit UCITS/AIF holdings for liquidity, rating compliance, prospectus alignment, and issuer/counterparty limits; divest non-eligible assets.
Enhance due diligence: Implement robust processes for unlisted/illiquid securities valuation, liquidity risk modeling, and repo unwind risks; document all assessments.
Strengthen governance: Senior managers must oversee investment ratios and eligibility; update procedures for buy & sell backs in exposure calculations.
Depositary checks: Verify oversight of management company systems for ratios, legality, and prospectus terms.
Training/remediation: Conduct firm-wide training on UCITS rules; test controls against AMF/FCA principles (e.g., skill/care, regulator relations).

Key Dates

AI Analysis

On October 24, 2022, France's Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) suspended all financial instruments (shares, debt securities, and related instruments) issued by ORPEA S.A., a major European care homes operator, pending disclosure of material information under the European Market Abuse Regulation. This enforcement action reflects serious governance and disclosure failures at a publicly listed company facing allegations of operational malpractice and undisclosed financial difficulties.

What Changed

The AMF's suspension order represents a temporary halt to all trading in ORPEA's financial instruments across regulated markets.
Financial covenant breaches: The company faced potential acceleration of €3.3 billion in financing lines due to anticipated breaches of "R1" and "R2" financial covenants.
Asset impairments: Anticipated write-downs at December 31, 2022, related to a stalled real estate disposal program.
Debt restructuring needs: €4.3 billion in unsecured debt requiring conversion or restructuring.

Suggested Considerations

*For ORPEA (and comparable listed companies):
*Immediate disclosure obligations: Publish a Regulated Information Service (RIS) announcement under MAR Article 17 disclosing all material information regarding financial difficulties, covenant breaches, and restructuring plans before trading resumes.
*Ongoing periodic updates: Provide quarterly updates on conciliation procedure progress, covenant amendment status, and asset disposal program execution.
*Governance remediation: Establish or strengthen disclosure committees with clear protocols for identifying and escalating material information within 24-48 hours of discovery.
*Creditor communication: Maintain transparent dialogue with financial creditors regarding covenant amendments and restructuring timelines.

Key Dates

October 24, 2022

- AMF requests suspension of ORPEA's financial instruments before market opening

October 26, 2022

Governance Europe & international The AMF encourages French participants to provide feedback to ESMA’s call for evidence on the implementation of the Shareholders Rights Directive (SRD 2)

AI Analysis

The AMF publication urges French market participants to submit feedback to ESMA's call for evidence evaluating the implementation of the Shareholder Rights Directive II (SRD II), which aims to enhance long-term shareholder engagement, transparency in voting processes, and issuer-shareholder dialogue across the EU/EEA. This matters for compliance teams as it signals ongoing regulatory scrutiny of SRD II transposition and operational compliance, potentially leading to harmonized amendments that could require process updates in shareholder identification, voting transmission, and engagement disclosures. French firms' input can influence future EU rules, mitigating risks of non-compliance with evolving standards.

What Changed

This AMF notice itself introduces no new regulatory changes; it promotes participation in ESMA's review of SRD II (Directive (EU) 2017/828), implemented via national laws by June 2019 and effective from September 3, 2020. SRD II's core requirements include: shareholder identification without delay, electronic/machine-readable transmission of voting and meeting information along the intermediary chain, confirmation of vote recording/counting, transparency on institutional investor and asset manager engagement policies/strategies, and extended scope to EEA-listed shares.

Suggested Considerations

Submit feedback to ESMA: French participants must review ESMA's call for evidence and provide input on SRD II implementation challenges, such as intermediary processes, data transmission, and cross-border voting (immediate action urged by AMF).
Review current compliance: Audit internal systems for SRD II adherence, including electronic formats (e.g., seev.008 messages, MT 260SRD mandates), vote confirmations, and engagement policy disclosures.
Enhance processes if needed: Align with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1212 for shareholder ID requests, meeting notifications, and voting (e.g., VOTACCESS adaptations for French market).
Monitor ESMA/EC outputs: Prepare for potential rule changes from the review, such as harmonized documentation or deadlines.

Key Dates

AI Analysis

The AMF is conducting a consultation on regulatory reforms governing the end-of-life management of retail private equity funds (FCPRs, FCPIs, and FIPs), with the objective of improving compliance with liquidation deadlines and enhancing investor protection through better information disclosure and operational safeguards. This initiative addresses systemic issues where fund managers have historically failed to respect contractual lifespan commitments, creating liquidity risks and investor communication failures.

What Changed

The AMF has amended its General Regulation and policy framework to implement several substantive requirements: Liquidation Compliance & Warnings A new Article 422-120-14-1 requires management companies to include a warning in promotional materials if, over the ten years preceding fund authorization, the company failed to respect the lifespan of at least 50% of retail or professional private equity funds under its management.

Suggested Considerations

*For All Retail Private Equity Fund Managers:
*Audit historical compliance with fund lifespan commitments over the preceding ten years to determine if warning requirements under Article 422-120-14-1 apply
*Update promotional materials to include required warnings if materiality thresholds are met (managing/having managed at least one other retail PE fund and at least three funds that reached end-of-life)
*Implement bank details collection for all funds established after December 5, 2024, incorporating requirements into subscription forms per Instruction DOC-2011-22
*Establish prior notification procedures for substantial changes to fund structure, investment strategy, or operations, with one-month advance notice to the AMF

Key Dates

January 10, 2024

- Revised ELTIF Regulation came into application

June 13, 2024

- Enactment of Attractiveness Law No. 2024-537 (establishing 15-year maximum lock-up period)

November 12, 2024

- AMF decision approving amendments to General Regulation

December 5, 2024

- Effective date for new Article 422-120-16 (bank details collection requirement for newly established funds)

December 5, 2024

- Publication in Official Journal of the French Republic

Compliance Impact

Urgency: HIGH

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth Manager

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Banking & Credit

🇫🇷 AMF Consultation medium

July 27th 2022

AMF's response to the International Sustainability Standards Board’s consultation on the exposure drafts on international sustainability disclosures

Regulatory developments Europe & international Sustainable Finance Periodic & ongoing disclosures AMF's response to the International Sustainability Standards Board’s consultation on the exposure drafts on international sustainability disclosures

AI Analysis

The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), France's financial markets regulator, issued a position paper on July 27, 2022, responding to the International Sustainability Standards Board's (ISSB) consultation on exposure drafts for international sustainability disclosure standards (IFRS S1 and S2). This matters for compliance professionals as it signals France's push for global-EU interoperability in ESG reporting, influencing how firms align ISSB "investor-focused" standards with Europe's double-materiality CSRD/ESRS framework to avoid dual reporting burdens. https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/amfs-eu-positions/amf-response-issb-consultation-exposure-drafts-sustainability-disclosure-standards; https://www.amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/private/2022-07/Position%20paper%20ISSB%20AMF%20-%20July%202022_0.pdf

What Changed

This is not a new regulation but AMF's recommendations to ISSB, emphasizing:
Interoperability with EU standards: AMF urges alignment between ISSB's financial materiality approach and EFRAG's double-materiality (impact + financial) ESRS, including jurisdictional working groups...
Broad ESG coverage: Calls for sector-agnostic standards beyond climate (e.g., full ESG spectrum via collaboration with EFRAG/GRI).
Phased implementation: Suggests gradual rollout of detailed requirements (e.g., Appendix B in S2) and an ISSB "Transition Resource Group" like IASB's for IFRS 9/15/17 to aid implementation.
Double-materiality advocacy: Prefers standards addressing all stakeholders, not just investors. No binding changes; ISSB issued final IFRS S1/S2 in June 2023.

Suggested Considerations

Monitor and map standards: Conduct gap analyses between current disclosures, ESRS, and ISSB S1/S2, focusing on interoperability (e.g., climate metrics, Scope 3 GHG).
Engage in transitions: Participate in potential ISSB Transition Resource Group or jurisdictional groups; prepare for phased ISSB implementation if adopted locally.
Enhance reporting processes: Update materiality assessments for double-materiality, quantitative climate financial impacts, and ESG breadth; leverage AMF's 2025 study on listed firms for benchmarks.
Stakeholder dialogue: Respond to ongoing consultations (e.g., EFRAG until Sep 2025) and track ISSB agenda priorities.

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium. This 2022 AMF response is historical but highly relevant amid 2025 EFRAG simplifications emphasizing ISSB interoperability, as EU firms juggle CSRD with global ISSB momentum (e.g., IFRS finals in 2023). Matters for avoiding reporting fragmentation, with risks of supervisory scrutiny on French listed firms; low immediate enforcement but builds toward mandatory convergence.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankAll Firms

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Insurance & Pensions

🇫🇷 AMF Consultation medium

July 27th 2022

AMF's response to the EFRAG consultation on the draft European sustainability reporting standards

Regulatory developments Europe & international Sustainable Finance Periodic & ongoing disclosures AMF's response to the EFRAG consultation on the draft European sustainability reporting standards

AI Analysis

The AMF's position paper responds to EFRAG's 2022 public consultation on the first set of draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) under the CSRD, welcoming their ambition on ESG topics and double materiality while urging proportionality, international interoperability, materiality focus, and alignment with EU laws like SFDR. This matters for compliance professionals as it shapes final ESRS, influencing mandatory sustainability disclosures for EU firms and financial market participants from 2024 onward, with potential simplifications affecting reporting burdens. https://www.amf-france.org/en/news-publications/news/amfs-response-efrag-consultation-draft-european-sustainability-reporting-standards

What Changed

This is a consultation response, not a final rule, but AMF highlights these priorities for ESRS development:
International interoperability: Convergence with ISSB standards to avoid duplication and meet investor needs across jurisdictions.
Proportionality in disclosures: Gradual implementation, prioritizing climate standards, balancing stakeholder needs with issuer costs, and ensuring SFDR coverage.
Materiality focus: Enhanced guidance on materiality assessments, centering company-led analysis without presuming topics' materiality upfront.
EU consistency: Avoid duplicating info from SFDR, Taxonomy, and other regs; rely on existing concepts.

Suggested Considerations

Monitor ESRS evolution: Track EFRAG/EC updates on final standards, focusing on AMF priorities like materiality guidance and ISSB mapping.
Enhance materiality processes: Develop/improve double materiality assessments, preparing guidance integration.
Align reporting systems: Map ESRS to SFDR/Taxonomy data; test proportionality phased rollouts (e.g., climate first).
Engage stakeholders: Participate in ongoing consultations (e.g., EFRAG connectivity); benchmark against ISSB for interoperability.

Key Dates

July 2022

- AMF submits response to EFRAG consultation on draft ESRS. https://www.amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/private/2022-07/AMF%20appendix%20to%20position%20paper%20on%20EFRAG%20consultation%20July%202022.pdf

2024

- First CSRD application for FY 2024 reports (large public-interest entities). https://www.amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/private/2022-07/AMF%20appendix%20to%20position%20paper%20on%20EFRAG%20consultation%20July%202022.pdf

2025

- ESRS adoption by European Commission (first set covering SFDR needs). https://www.amf-france.org/sites/institutionnel/files/private/2022-07/AMF%20appendix%20to%20position%20paper%20on%20EFRAG%20consultation%20July%202022.pdf

2027

- Potential application of simplified ESRS (per EC quick fix hints). https://www.gibsondunn.com/efrag-releases-draft-simplified-european-sustainability-reporting-standards-esrs/

TBD (post

2025); - EC Delegated Act on simplified ESRS, subject to 2-month EU Parliament/Council scrutiny. https://www.efrag.org/en/news-and-calendar/news/efrag-provides-its-technical-advice-on-draft-simplified-esrs-to-the-european-commission

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium - Historical (2022) input shapes binding ESRS already applying in 2024/2025, but ongoing simplifications (e.g., 2025 EC advice) offer relief on burdens; critical for FY2026+ prep amid interoperability push, yet not immediate mandates. Matters for reducing overload, ensuring SFDR compliance, and avoiding EU fines (up to 10M EUR under CSRD).

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Asset ManagerBankInsurance

Investment Management Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement medium

July 25th 2022

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a depositary for breaches of its professional obligations

Sanctions & settlements Compliance Journalists Investment services providers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a depositary for breaches of its professional obligations

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee fined RBC Investor Services Bank France SA (RBC ISBF) €500,000 plus a warning on 20 July 2022 (published 08 January 2026) for breaches as a UCITS and AIF depositary, including 25 confirmed failures in tiered intervention procedures for investment ratio overruns and deficient monitoring of 14 questionable cash flows over 45 months. This decision underscores AMF's strict enforcement of depositary duties under French regulations implementing UCITS/AIFMD, emphasizing robust controls for ratio compliance, cash flow verification, and documentation. It matters for compliance teams as it provides precedent on what constitutes "irregular and deficient" oversight, potentially increasing scrutiny and fines for similar lapses in depositary functions.

What Changed

This is an enforcement decision, not a new regulation, but it clarifies and reinforces existing depositary obligations under French UCITS/AIFMD rules (e.g., Articles L. 214-7 et seq.
Ratio monitoring and intervention: Depositaries must implement tiered procedures for investment/asset composition ratio breaches (e.g., diversification limits); 25 of 28 alleged anomalies were upheld...
Cash flow oversight: Must identify significant/inconsistent flows, verify instructions against laws, fund rules, prospectuses, and ensure ownership thresholds (e.g., 5% capital holding for advances);...

Suggested Considerations

Review depositary controls: Audit tiered intervention procedures for ratio overruns; ensure unique tracking (even if not upheld here) and redundancy elimination in reporting.
Enhance cash flow monitoring: For all inflows/outflows, collect "precise and convincing" docs (e.g., ownership proofs for advances >5% capital); flag inconsistencies with fund docs/prospectus.
Conduct gap analysis: Sample historical flows (e.g., 45-month lookbacks) across AIFs/UCITS; test against AMF objections standards from this and similar cases (e.g., CACEIS).
Update policies/procedures: Document controls for legality checks on instructions; train staff on evidentiary thresholds to avoid "deficient monitoring" findings.
Appeal if applicable: Lodge appeal against decision (no deadline specified).

Key Dates

20 July 2022

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision date imposing €500,000 fine and warning on RBC ISBF

08 January 2026

- Public news release/publication date of the decision

Compliance Impact

Urgency: Medium – Recent publication (08 January 2026) signals ongoing AMF focus on depositary failings amid H2O-related probes, but stems from 2022 events with no immediate deadlines. Matters because it sets precedents for fine quantum (€500k) on procedural lapses, reinforces liability for cash/ratio controls, and aligns with pattern of multi-million fines (e.g., CACEIS €3.5m), urging preemptive audits to mitigate enforcement risk.

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

Banking & Credit Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

July 21st 2022

The AMF reviews the key issues raised by the Veolia-Suez public offer

Bids Financial disclosures & corporate financing The AMF reviews the key issues raised by the Veolia-Suez public offer

Sectors:

Topics:

Reporting & Disclosure Prudential / Capital Requirements Market Abuse / Surveillance

BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

July 19th 2022

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines one natural person and five legal entities, including an investment management company, for failing to comply with several reporting obligations in relation to a concerted action carried out in the context of a part...

Sanctions & settlements Journalists The AMF Enforcement Committee fines one natural person and five legal entities, including a management company, for failing to comply with several reporting obligations in relation to a concerted action carried out in the context of a takeover bid and, in the case of the...

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee imposed fines on one natural person and five legal entities, including an investment management company, for failing to comply with multiple reporting obligations related to a concerted action during a partial takeover bid.[User Query]. This enforcement action underscores the AMF's strict enforcement of transparency rules in takeover scenarios, serving as a critical reminder for market participants to adhere to disclosure timelines to avoid significant financial penalties and reputational damage.

What Changed

This is not a regulatory change or new requirement but an enforcement decision highlighting existing obligations under French financial markets law, particularly those governing concerted actions...
Timely disclosure of positions and intentions when parties act in concert, as per AMF regulations on major holdings and takeover bids (e.g., Article L.
Reporting thresholds for share acquisitions or concerted behaviors that could influence control, typically triggered at 5% crossings or changes. No new rules were introduced; the decision reiterates...

Suggested Considerations

Review and enhance internal procedures for monitoring share positions, identifying concerted actions, and automating AMF filings.
Train front-office and compliance teams on takeover bid disclosures, including documentation of coordination (e.g., emails, agreements).
Implement pre-trade alerts for threshold breaches and conduct periodic audits of historical filings.
For management companies: Ensure portfolio managers report potential concert with external parties promptly; update compliance manuals with case lessons.

Key Dates

Reporting & Disclosure Technology & Cyber Authorisation & Licensing

Topics:

Asset ManagerBroker DealerFintech

Investment Management Capital Markets & Trading Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF News low

April 28th 2022

Appointments in the Investigations Directorate and the Asset Management Directorate

Appointment AMF activity Other professionals Executive & other private individuals Market Infrastructures Post-trade Infrastructures Professional investors Journalists Investment services providers Investment management...

Sectors:

Topics:

Authorisation & Licensing Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking Consumer Credit

🇫🇷 AMF News

April 20th 2022

The AMF Ombudsman publishes her 2021 Annual Report

Mediation Annual report Retail investors Journalists The AMF Ombudsman publishes her 2021 Annual Report

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Reporting & Disclosure Authorisation & Licensing

Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

April 13th 2022

The AMF publishes a summary of its SPOT inspections on post-trade transparency in the bond market

Supervision Fixed income Journalists Investment services providers The AMF publishes a summary of its SPOT inspections on post-trade transparency in the bond market

Sectors:

Topics:

Broker DealerBank

Investment Management Banking & Credit Wealth & Private Banking

🇫🇷 AMF News medium

April 4th 2022

The AMF and TRACFIN sign a new cooperation protocol

Anti-money Laundering Asset management The AMF and TRACFIN sign a new cooperation protocol

Sectors:

Topics:

AML / Financial Crime Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

March 30th 2022

The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a biotech company for failing to disclose inside information as soon as possible, and one of its co-founders and one of its shareholders for unlawful disclosure or use of inside information

Sanctions & settlements Journalists The AMF Enforcement Committee fines a biotech company for failing to disclose inside information as soon as possible, and one of its co-founders and one of its shareholders for unlawful disclosure or use of inside information

AI Analysis

The AMF Enforcement Committee sanctioned a biotech company for delaying disclosure of inside information, and fined a co-founder and shareholder for unlawfully disclosing or using it, violating EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) obligations under Articles 7, 10, and 17. This case underscores the AMF's strict enforcement of timely public disclosure and insider handling, highlighting risks of personal liability for executives and shareholders in listed biotech firms. Compliance teams must prioritize robust information barrier procedures and insider list management to mitigate similar penalties.

What Changed

This enforcement action does not introduce new regulations but reinforces existing MAR requirements transposed into AMF General Regulation (e.g., Article 315-1), including:
Immediate public disclosure: Issuers must disclose inside information "as soon as possible" under MAR Article 17, unless three conditions for delay are met (legitimate interest, confidentiality...
Prohibition on unlawful disclosure/use: Persons with inside information cannot disclose it except per MAR Article 10 (after informing compliance officer); investment firms must maintain "information...
Insider list obligations: Companies must create, update, and notify insiders of their duties (e.g., no trading or dissemination), with accurate details; failure leads to penalties as seen in related...

Suggested Considerations

Assess information promptly: Determine inside information status per MAR Article 7 (precise, price-significant) and disclose via approved channels (e.g., electronic dissemination per Article 221-3 AMF GR).
Implement controls: Establish information barriers, restrict access, and notify affected persons of rules/penalties (AMF GR Articles 223-27, 223-30).
Maintain insider lists: Create/update lists for each inside information item, ensure insiders acknowledge MAR duties (no use/dissemination), and monitor changes.
Train personnel: Educate executives/shareholders on disclosure prohibitions and PDMR reporting.
Archive disclosures: Post regulated info on company website immediately and ensure AMF/DILA transmission.

Key Dates

As soon as possible

Europe & international Sustainable Finance Asset management The AMF invites providers, users and rated entities to respond to ESMA's Call for evidence on the ESG rating market in Europe

AI Analysis

The AMF is urging French stakeholders—ESG rating providers, users, and rated entities—to respond to ESMA's 2022 Call for Evidence on the EU ESG rating market to inform European Commission efforts on improving transparency and reliability. This matters as it contributes to the foundational data driving the ESG Ratings Regulation (EU 2024/3005), which imposes authorization, disclosure, and conflict-of-interest rules on providers, affecting sustainable finance compliance across the EU. With the regulation applying from 2 July 2026, early engagement helps shape final rules amid ongoing ESMA consultations on technical standards.

What Changed

This AMF notice itself introduces no new regulatory changes; it promotes responses to ESMA's 2022 Call for Evidence, which gathered market insights to support the European Commission's July 2021 sustainable finance strategy. However, it highlights the push for a European framework on ESG ratings, including transparency on methodologies, conflict-of-interest management, internal controls, and dialogue with rated companies—elements now codified in the ESG Ratings Regulation effective 2 January 2025 (application from 2 July 2026).

Suggested Considerations

For Users and Rated Entities: Although the 2022 Call for Evidence is closed, monitor ESMA's ongoing RTS consultations (closed 20 June 2025) and Commission feedback; assess internal ESG data reliance for SFDR/Taxonomy alignment and update policies for new disclosure requirements.
All Affected Firms: Map ESG rating dependencies in investment processes, train compliance teams on upcoming rules, and engage in industry feedback to influence final RTS adoption expected post-Q4 2025.
AMF Stakeholders: Although dated, the notice encouraged French market input; now pivot to compliance readiness for 2026 application.

🇮🇪 CBI Enforcement low

January 20th 2022

Central Bank publishes three Behind the Data papers examining the international activities of the Irish financial sector

Recent increase in cross-border financial assets is largely due to migration of assets from UK banks to subsidiaries in Ireland, to continue to serve EU clients after Brexit. Paper examining the strength of the connectedness of Irish insurance sector and investment funds finds insurers primarily hold shares in equity, bond, and mixed funds. The Irish non-bank financial intermediation sector – as measured using a Financial Stability Board framework - is the fifth largest in the world. The Cent...

AI Analysis

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) published three "Behind the Data" papers on 20 January 2022 analyzing the international activities of Ireland's banking, insurance, investment funds, and non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI) sectors, highlighting post-Brexit asset migrations, insurer exposures via funds, and Ireland's fifth-largest global NBFI sector per FSB metrics. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals heightened CBI scrutiny on cross-border exposures, interconnectedness, and data granularity needs, potentially informing future supervisory expectations, macro-prudential policies, and reporting enhancements without imposing immediate rules.

What Changed

No direct regulatory changes, requirements, or new rules are introduced; these are analytical papers using existing locational banking, insurance, and fund data. Key insights include: (i) €180bn surge in cross-border bank assets (2018-Q3 2021) driven by UK-to-Ireland subsidiary migrations post-Brexit, concentrated in loans/deposits, derivatives, and three foreign-parent banks; (ii) Irish insurers' fund holdings primarily in equity (US-issued), bond (euro-area government/corporate), and mixed funds, with ~50% domiciled in Luxembourg but minimal local issuance; (iii) Recommendation for refined...

Suggested Considerations

Review and enhance internal reporting on cross-border assets, distinguishing Irish-parent vs. foreign-parent activities, in anticipation of potential narrower CBI statistics.
Map insurer fund exposures to underlying assets (e.g., equities, bonds) for geographic and asset-class transparency, addressing CBI-noted complexities in fund structures.
Assess NBFI activities against FSB economic functions for stability risks; prepare for possible granular data requests.
Monitor CBI's "Behind the Data" series for evolving trends, as it uses firm-submitted data and fulfills IMF recommendations (e.g., FSAP 2022 on fund exposures).

Key Dates

BankInsurance

Banking & Credit Investment Management Wealth & Private Banking

🇮🇪 CBI Enforcement medium

December 20th 2018

Enforcement Action: RSA Insurance Ireland DAC fined €3.5m

The Central Bank of Ireland imposes a fine of €3,500,000 on RSA Insurance Ireland DAC for regulatory breaches relating to large loss claims and accounting irregularities On the 18 December 2018, the Central Bank of Ireland (the “ Central Bank ”) reprimanded and fined RSA Insurance Ireland DAC (“ RSAII ” or the “ Firm ”) €3,500,000 in respect of serious breaches relating to the following: Failure to establish and maintain Technical Reserves in respect of all underwriting liabilities assumed by...

AI Analysis

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) fined RSA Insurance Ireland DAC (RSAII) €3.5 million in December 2018 for serious breaches involving failure to maintain adequate technical reserves, inadequate internal controls and accounting procedures, and weak governance, stemming from deliberate under-reserving of large loss claims from 2009 to 2013, which understated reserves by €78.2 million as of 30 September 2013. This enforcement action underscores the CBI's zero-tolerance stance on reserving practices that risk policyholder protection and financial stability, highlighting how governance failures enabled manipulation and led to a significant capital injection for RSAII. It matters for compliance professionals as it demonstrates ongoing CBI scrutiny, with related actions against individuals like former CEO Philip Smith (13-year disqualification in 2025) and a former actuary (5-year prohibition).

What Changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new regulation, but it reinforces core pre-Solvency II requirements under the European Communities (Non-Life Insurance) Framework Regulations 1994, specifically Article 13(1)(a), mandating firms to establish and maintain technical reserves for all underwriting liabilities. It highlights breaches of the Corporate Governance Code for Credit Institutions and Insurance Undertakings 2010 (Section 6.3), requiring robust governance, internal reporting, and reliable information flows to decision-makers.

Suggested Considerations

Conduct reserving process reviews: Ensure claims handlers' recommended estimates are recorded without delay or manipulation; implement independent validation for large loss claims.
Strengthen internal controls: Develop sound administrative/accounting procedures and mechanisms to detect irregularities (e.g., unearned premium adjustments, claims expenses).
Enhance governance: Robustify internal reporting structures per Corporate Governance Code 2010 (Section 6.3); promote ethical culture to prevent individual overrides.
Senior accountability: Boards and executives must oversee compliance; remediate via capital injections if needed, as RSAII did.
Supervisory engagement: Cooperate fully with CBI probes; apply lessons to Solvency II reserving under Article 101 (post-2016).

Key Dates

2009

October 2013; Period of under-reserving breaches and manipulation of large loss claims

30 September 2013

Warning Warning Financial disclosures & corporate financing The Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) has issued a public warning against the activities of individuals impersonating the delegate of the AMF Ombudsman by making false referrals to FIN-NET, the European Commission body in charge of...

Sectors:

Topics:

Consumer Protection / Conduct Authorisation & Licensing Reporting & Disclosure

BankWealth ManagerAll Firms