Global Regulatory Updates for Financial Services

Key dates

2023-12-13

The SEC adopted the Treasury clearing amendments, including the trade-submission requirement implemented through Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(A).

2026-10-30

The SEC issued exemptive relief for specified inter-affiliate and non-U.S. Treasury repo transactions.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Compliance date for applicable eligible secondary market cash transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities.

2027-06-30 Deadline

Compliance date for applicable eligible secondary market repo transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should obtain and analyze the operative October 30, 2026 Section 36 exemptive order, including all limits, conditions, definitions, recordkeeping provisions, and any continuing reporting requirements.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all Treasury repo transactions by legal entity, counterparty location, direct-participant status, affiliate relationship, guarantee structure, and whether the transaction is market-facing or solely inter-affiliate.
• Firms should validate whether each proposed affiliate qualifies under Rule 17ad-22(a) as modified by the relief and confirm that the affiliate is not an investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
• Broker-dealers and other direct participants should update trade-classification, order-management, confirmation, clearing-submission, exception-management, and surveillance controls to distinguish exempt transactions from transactions that must be submitted for clearing.
• Global firms should establish governance for monitoring any activity-based or volume-based limit applicable to non-U.S. repo relief, including data ownership, aggregation across affiliates and direct participants, calculation frequency, escalation thresholds, and evidence retained for supervisory review.
• Firms should continue implementation of the broader Treasury clearing framework and should not treat the relief as a basis for delaying preparations for the December 31, 2026 cash-market or June 30, 2027 repo compliance dates.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to assess whether non-U.S. branches, foreign affiliates, guarantees by U.S. persons, or local-law requirements create additional obligations notwithstanding the SEC relief.

What changed

The relief applies to certain repo transactions involving non-U.S. counterparties, subject to specified limits and conditions. It also expands the inter-affiliate treatment for repos between a direct participant of a U.S. Treasury securities covered clearing agency and an affiliated entity that is not an investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided the affiliate otherwise meets the affiliated-counterparty definition in Rule 17ad-22(a).

Key dates

2026-10-30

FDIC Board unanimously approved the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by notational vote.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should obtain and review the complete NPRM, including proposed amendments, definitions, scope thresholds, transition provisions, and the Federal Register comment deadline, because the bulletin itself contains only a high-level announcement.
• Firms should map each insured depository institution against the current applicability criteria in 12 CFR part 370 and 12 CFR 360.9, documenting deposit-account counts, domestic deposits, total assets, existing exemptions, certifications, and any voluntary compliance elections.
• Affected institutions should inventory overlapping deposit-insurance determination, depositor-record, provisional-hold, data-format, and reporting capabilities to identify systems that could potentially be consolidated if the proposal is finalized.
• Technology, operations, deposit administration, legal, resolution-planning, and third-party-risk teams should assess whether current data lineage, account ownership and capacity coding, reconciliation, testing, and FDIC access processes would satisfy a revised standardized-record framework.
• Firms should consider submitting comments on the operational feasibility, treatment of affiliates and mergers, transition periods, testing expectations, treatment of custodial and pass-through accounts, and whether any proposed relief would create gaps in failure-day data availability.
• Institutions should continue complying with currently effective 12 CFR part 370 and 12 CFR 360.9 requirements until a final rule becomes effective and any applicable transition period expires.

What changed

The FDIC has proposed amendments concerning the framework used by large insured depository institutions to maintain depositor records and support rapid deposit-insurance determinations. Based on the FDIC’s accompanying policy direction and independent industry commentary, the proposal would likely preserve standardized depositor-record and data-access requirements while reducing or eliminating the need for institutions subject to 12 CFR part 370 to maintain separate, independent deposit-insurance determination systems.

Key dates

2026-07-23

EFRAG published the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft and opened a 100-day public consultation.

2026-10-28

The Government of Japan dated its comment letter on the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft.

2026-10-31 Deadline

EFRAG's public consultation on the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft closes.

2027-01-01

EFRAG is expected to deliver technical advice on ESRS-40a to the European Commission.

2028-01-01

The first financial years to which the proposed Article 40a reporting framework is expected to apply are expected to begin on or after this date, subject to adoption of the final rules.

2029-01-01

The first ESRS-40a reports are generally expected to be published in 2029 for financial years beginning on or after 2028-01-01, subject to the final delegated act and applicable publication timing.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map group and EU-entity turnover against the Article 40a thresholds, using the preceding financial year for the EUR 200 million subsidiary or branch test and each of the preceding two financial years for the EUR 450 million EU-turnover test.
• In-scope groups should monitor the outcome of the EFRAG consultation, the expected January 2027 technical advice and the European Commission's subsequent delegated act before treating any ESRS-40a exposure-draft provision as final.
• Reporting teams should compare existing ISSB-aligned or jurisdictionally mandated sustainability reporting with the ESRS-40a requirements and identify likely top-ups, particularly disclosures not covered by ISSB Standards.
• Groups may wish to model the data, governance and assurance consequences of global reporting, the proposed mixed approach and Japan's suggested EU-impact-focused alternative.
• EU subsidiaries and branches should clarify with their non-EU parent whether the reporting obligation will be met through an incorporated group report, an ESRS-40a report or another permitted equivalent, including arrangements for publication, accessibility and assurance.
• Stakeholders wishing to influence the final standard should consider submitting comments to EFRAG by the consultation deadline, including evidence on duplicative disclosures, EU-impact scoping and interoperability with ISSB-aligned standards.

What changed

The Government of Japan proposed that EFRAG clarify which ESRS-40a disclosure requirements would remain as top-ups where a non-EU group incorporates by reference a group sustainability report prepared under jurisdictionally mandated standards functionally aligned with ISSB Standards. Japan also proposed adding an alternative to the Exposure Draft's mixed approach that would reduce the reporting burden on non-EU companies while requiring reporting of all EU-related impacts. The Exposure Draft itself is a consultation proposal rather than a final binding standard.

Key dates

2019-08-01

Start of the period in which ASIC alleges more than $600 million was invested in First Guardian and the alleged failures occurred.

2024-05-01

Falcon Capital froze or suspended redemptions from First Guardian, subject to limited exceptions.

2025-02-24

The Federal Court made interim orders freezing the assets of Falcon Capital, First Guardian and David Anderson.

2025-04-09

The Federal Court ordered Falcon Capital and First Guardian to be wound up and appointed liquidators and a receiver in related orders.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced commencement of civil penalty proceedings against David Anderson and Simon Selimaj and its application for leave to proceed against Falcon Capital in liquidation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all related-party, connected-party and director-linked investments across managed investment schemes, including indirect exposures through controlled underlying funds.
• Firms should consider testing whether each private-credit, property and private-equity investment has current executed documentation, enforceable security, independent valuation support, documented approval, appropriate concentration analysis and evidence of ongoing monitoring.
• Responsible entities and trustees may wish to reassess whether investment committees exercise meaningful independent oversight, particularly where a chief executive, director or investment officer can originate, approve or vary investments without effective challenge.
• Firms should consider refreshing conflicts registers and reviewing whether conflicts were identified, disclosed, avoided or managed before investor funds were committed, including conflicts involving hospitality, alcohol-related businesses, technology ventures, property developments and payments to entities controlled by officers or associates.
• Product issuers may wish to review product disclosure statements and other investor communications for unsupported claims about robustness, diversification, security, liquidity, risk controls or investment processes, and assess whether any corrective disclosure or remediation is required.
• Platform operators, trustees and advice licensees may wish to review onboarding and due-diligence files for complex private-market products, including verification of valuations, underlying-fund registration status, custody arrangements, liquidity assumptions and the identity of related parties.
• Advice licensees may wish to test whether recommendations to transfer superannuation or establish an SMSF and invest in high-risk managed schemes were supported by documented best-interests analysis, appropriate disclosure and suitability assessments.
• Senior managers and boards may wish to preserve records demonstrating challenge, escalation, monitoring and follow-up of exceptions, red flags, valuation concerns, redemption restrictions and unusual related-party payments.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or generally applicable legislative amendment. ASIC alleges that Falcon Capital, as responsible entity of the First Guardian Master Fund, failed to maintain effective investment governance, due diligence, documentation, security, conflict management and oversight; misled investors through product disclosure statements describing robust investment processes; and allowed at least $57 million to be paid to entities controlled by Anderson or Selimaj.

Key dates

2026-12-04 Deadline

ASIC consultation on CS 69 and the proposed RG 172 update closes at 5pm AEDT.

Suggested considerations

• Market licensees should consider submitting responses to CS 69 by 5pm AEDT on 4 December 2026, addressing whether the proposed methodology is workable for their business model and venue type.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current financial-resources calculations against the proposed six-month minimum and identify whether all venue, group, outsourcing and related-party operating costs are included.
• Licensees should consider separating liquid resources supporting continuity and recovery from capital buffers supporting positive net assets and loss absorption, and documenting the legal availability of each resource.
• Market operators may wish to perform severe-but-plausible recovery and orderly-wind-down scenarios, including critical-service recovery, prolonged disruption, higher professional costs and support for affected users.
• Significant market venues should consider developing or enhancing scenario analysis, stress-testing governance, assumptions, frequency, management information and escalation thresholds.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to prepare evidence linking financial-resources calculations to specific balance-sheet items and to the methodologies and assumptions reported under section 792F.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing dividend, distribution, intra-group funding and other capital-management controls to prevent actions that could cause or reasonably be expected to cause a financial-resources shortfall.
• Licensees should consider establishing documented monitoring, notification and remediation processes for actual or prospective shortfalls, including assessment of notification obligations under section 792B and restoration timeframes agreed with ASIC.

What changed

The consultation proposes revised RG 172 guidance supporting the existing obligation in section 792A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 to maintain sufficient resources to operate a market properly. A licensee would assess resources for all of its activities, not only a particular venue, and would generally need resources sufficient to cover at least six months of operating expenses; the assessment should include relevant service and outsourcing costs, including related-party arrangements.

Key dates

2017-09-01

Start of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches concerning the Crown insurance arrangements; the date is approximate because ASIC states only September 2017.

2018-11-30

End of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches; ASIC states November 2018.

2022-03-01

ACBF entities entered liquidation; ASIC states March 2022, without specifying the exact day.

2026-02-01

The contested liability hearing concerning Jones took place in February 2026; ASIC has not specified the exact day.

2026-06-30 Deadline

Closing date for applications to the Government’s Youpla Support Program.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced the findings against Jones and Pattenden and the orders agreed with Pattenden.

2026-12-01

Payments under the Youpla Support Program are scheduled to continue being processed until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing board and committee processes for identifying, disclosing and managing actual or potential conflicts involving directors, officers and related parties.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether related-party insurance, reinsurance, outsourcing and service arrangements are demonstrably in the company’s interests, supported by independent analysis and properly documented board decisions.
• Boards may wish to review whether premium changes, counterparty concentration, offshore structures and insurer solvency risks are escalated promptly and communicated appropriately to affected customers.
• Insurers and other firms serving vulnerable or First Nations consumers should consider whether product governance, distribution controls and customer communications adequately address cultural, language, literacy and affordability risks.
• Companies should consider retaining evidence showing that directors challenged management assumptions, considered viable alternatives and monitored the ongoing financial and consumer consequences of material arrangements.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to monitor the later penalty hearing for Jones and the reserved decisions concerning Jonathan Law, Michael Wilson and Geoffrey Clayton, as those outcomes may provide further indications of ASIC’s approach to individual accountability and director disqualification.
• Firms should distinguish this case from a new industry-wide rule: the immediate orders apply to Pattenden, while the broader compliance significance is the enforcement precedent and ASIC’s stated priority of protecting vulnerable consumers.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or general compliance obligation. Pattenden is subject to a $250,000 civil penalty and a 15-year prohibition on managing corporations; Jones has been found liable, with penalties to be determined at a later hearing. ASIC’s case concerns alleged breaches of sections 180, 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 arising from insurance arrangements with Vanuatu-based Crown Insurance Services Limited, which ASIC alleged was beneficially owned and controlled by Pattenden and Jonathan Law and was not in the interests of the ACBF entities.

Key dates

2026-06-08

The AMF launched its public consultation on the draft recommendation on MMF liquidity.

2026-10-30

The AMF published final Recommendation DOC-2026-07 on liquidity management for money market funds.

Suggested considerations

• Consider mapping each affected MMF’s current and stressed WLA against both the applicable MMFR minimum and the AMF market-resilience reference level of 20% or 40%.
• Consider documenting fund-specific liquidity calibration, including investor concentration, expected redemption patterns, dealing frequency, portfolio composition, currency exposure and market-liquidity assumptions, rather than relying only on a static WLA benchmark.
• Consider reviewing liquidity-risk dashboards and escalation triggers so that a fall below the relevant resilience level is identified promptly and escalated through strengthened internal governance.
• Consider establishing a documented process to determine when a breach has persisted for 10 business days and when a prolonged or significant deviation is reasonably anticipated.
• Consider preparing an AMF notification package containing the duration and scale of the deviation, its causes, remedial measures, portfolio and investor-liquidity analysis, and relevant stress-test results.
• Consider reviewing stress-testing scenarios and management information to ensure they support decisions to use or rebuild liquidity buffers without automatically activating liquidity-management tools solely because the resilience level is breached.
• Consider confirming that policies distinguish the AMF supervisory resilience levels from the binding 15% and 30% MMFR WLA minima and identify the different consequences of each threshold.
• Consider monitoring coordinated guidance from the Central Bank of Ireland, Luxembourg’s CSSF and the UK FCA because comparable 20% and 40% reference levels may affect cross-border group governance and supervisory expectations.

What changed

The AMF expects VNAV MMFs generally to maintain at least 20% WLA, compared with the 15% statutory minimum under Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 on money market funds (MMFR). Public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs are expected generally to maintain at least 40% WLA, compared with the 30% MMFR minimum. These are supervisory market-resilience levels rather than new statutory MMFR minimums. Where a fund falls sustainably below the relevant level, its management company is expected to apply heightened liquidity-risk vigilance, rapid escalation procedures and strengthened internal decision-making.

Key dates

2026-06-08

The Central Bank published Consultation Paper CP168 on Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset levels.

2026-08-03 Deadline

The consultation period for CP168 closed.

2026-10-30

The Central Bank published the CP168 Feedback Statement and final Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset levels.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each affected fund's current and projected WLA against the 40% resilience level for Public Debt CNAV and LVNAV funds and the 20% level for VNAV funds.
• MMF managers may wish to update liquidity-risk frameworks, liquidity monitoring, stress-testing assumptions, escalation triggers and board or risk-committee reporting to reflect the resilience levels.
• Compliance and risk teams should document how temporary movements below a resilience level will be assessed in the context of the fund's overall liquidity position, redemption profile, asset liquidity and market conditions.
• Managers should establish or validate procedures for prompt escalation and notification to the Central Bank where WLA remains below the applicable resilience level for more than 10 business days or where a prolonged or substantial deviation is anticipated.
• Firms should retain evidence supporting WLA calculations, stress-test outputs, escalation decisions, explanations for deviations and communications with the Central Bank.
• Fund managers may wish to review liquidity-related disclosures and prospectus language, although independent commentary indicates that the Guidance is primarily expected to require internal liquidity-management changes rather than prospectus amendments.
• Irish MMF managers should monitor related developments from the European Commission, ESMA, the French AMF and Luxembourg CSSF because the Guidance forms part of a coordinated European supervisory approach.

What changed

The Guidance expects Public Debt Constant Net Asset Value (CNAV) and Low Volatility Net Asset Value (LVNAV) money market funds to maintain weekly liquid assets (WLA) at a market-resilience level of 40%, and Variable Net Asset Value (VNAV) money market funds to maintain WLA at 20%. These levels exceed the minimum WLA requirements in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1131, which are generally 30% for Public Debt CNAV and LVNAV funds and 15% for VNAV funds.

Key dates

2026-05-11

European Commission published its report on the adequacy of the MMFR and identified market-resilience WLA levels of 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs.

2026-06-08

CSSF launched its consultation on Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels.

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation.

2026-10-30

CSSF published the IMMFA consultation response and final guidance, and announced a three-month implementation period.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each affected MMF by VNAV, public debt CNAV or LVNAV status and map the applicable 20% or 40% WLA resilience benchmark against the existing 15% or 30% MMFR minimum.
• MMF managers should update liquidity-risk policies, escalation thresholds, management information and governance records to evidence enhanced vigilance when WLA approaches or falls below the relevant benchmark.
• Risk teams should incorporate the 20% and 40% benchmarks into Article 28 MMFR stress-testing and assess whether investor concentration, redemption behaviour, market liquidity and portfolio composition require liquidity materially above the benchmark.
• Firms should establish controls to identify periods exceeding 10 business days below the applicable benchmark and procedures for timely CSSF notification, including documented explanations, justifications and any relevant Article 28(4) or (5) remedial measures.
• Boards and senior management should review whether the three-month implementation period announced by CSSF requires changes to investment guidelines, liquidity buffers, breach escalation and reporting calendars.
• Compliance teams may wish to document that the resilience benchmarks are supervisory reference points rather than replacements for the MMFR statutory ratios, while recognising the CSSF’s stated intention to increase supervisory engagement for prolonged deviations.
• Firms should monitor cross-border consistency with the parallel supervisory approaches of the French AMF and Central Bank of Ireland, particularly where groups manage MMFs in multiple EU jurisdictions.

What changed

The CSSF has finalised guidance, following the consultation that closed on 3 August 2026, with only slight clarifications. MMF managers are expected to incorporate 20% WLA for VNAV MMFs and 40% WLA for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs into liquidity-risk frameworks and Article 28 stress-testing processes. These benchmarks sit above the existing Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 minimum WLA requirements of 15% for VNAV MMFs and 30% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs.

Key dates

2026-05-11

The European Commission published its MMF adequacy report identifying market-resilience WLA benchmarks of 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs, compared with MMFR minima of 15% and 30%, respectively.

2026-06-08

The CSSF launched its consultation on guidance for MMF weekly liquid asset levels.

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation.

2026-10-30

The CSSF published the final guidance and feedback statement and began a three-month implementation period.

2027-01-30 Deadline

Expected end of the CSSF's three-month implementation period, calculated from publication on 30 October 2026.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify each in-scope MMF's applicable WLA benchmark, distinguishing VNAV funds from public debt CNAV and LVNAV funds, and document the classification rationale.
• Managers should review daily liquidity, weekly liquidity, portfolio composition and liquidity-buffer targets against both the binding MMFR minima and the higher CSSF market-resilience benchmarks.
• Risk teams should enhance monitoring and escalation procedures for WLA levels approaching or falling below 20% or 40%, including ownership, management-information frequency, escalation thresholds and evidence of reinforced decision-making.
• Managers should update MMFR Article 28 stress-testing methodologies and governance to reflect the 20% VNAV and 40% public debt CNAV/LVNAV resilience levels, while retaining the existing MMFR regulatory minima and applicable ESMA stress-test requirements.
• Firms should establish a documented process for counting consecutive business days below the applicable benchmark and for notifying the CSSF after more than 10 business days or when a prolonged or substantial deviation is expected.
• Where stress testing identifies vulnerability, compliance and risk functions should assess whether Article 28(4) immediate notification, Article 28(5) reporting and an action plan are required.
• Managers should prepare records explaining any sustained deviation, including investor-liability characteristics, redemption patterns, liquidity-risk-system outputs, stress-test results and remedial measures, because the CSSF may increase supervisory scrutiny and review available information.
• Firms should assess whether prospectus disclosures, internal liquidity-risk policies, investment guidelines, delegation arrangements and board or conducting-officer reporting need updating during the three-month implementation period.

What changed

The final guidance follows the CSSF consultation launched on 8 June 2026 and contains only slight clarifications after stakeholder feedback. MMF managers are expected to treat 20% WLA for VNAV funds and 40% WLA for public debt CNAV and LVNAV funds as market-resilience reference levels within their liquidity-risk-management and stress-testing frameworks. When WLA approaches or falls below the applicable level, managers should apply enhanced vigilance, timely escalation and reinforced internal decision-making.

Key dates

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation on the proposed MMF WLA guidance.

2026-10-30

CSSF published the final MMF WLA guidance, feedback statement and consultation responses, including ALFI’s response.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each in-scope MMF as VNAV, public debt CNAV or LVNAV and map the applicable 20% or 40% WLA resilience benchmark against the fund’s existing 15% or 30% MMFR minimum.
• MMF managers should review liquidity risk-management frameworks, redemption assumptions, escalation thresholds, governance documentation and management-information reporting to demonstrate how the relevant benchmark is considered as a risk-management reference point rather than treated automatically as a statutory minimum.
• Managers should incorporate the 20% and 40% benchmarks into Article 28 MMFR stress-testing methodology, scenario analysis and board or governing-body reporting, while documenting fund-specific reasons for maintaining lower or higher WLA levels where appropriate.
• Firms should establish reliable daily monitoring of WLA, a process for identifying periods exceeding 10 business days below the relevant benchmark, and controls for escalating prolonged or substantial deviations to senior management and the CSSF.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare the information expected in a CSSF notification, including the duration and magnitude of the deviation, its cause, investor and redemption characteristics, stress-test results, liquidity-management actions and the rationale for the manager’s response.
• Boards and depositaries should review whether oversight records, challenge processes and valuation or liquidity controls adequately address the potential supervisory consequences of persistent benchmark breaches.
• Firms should assess the interaction with Circular CSSF 26/911 and the 2025 ESMA MMF stress-test guidelines, which apply to CSSF-supervised MMFs and Luxembourg managers from the 30 June 2026 reporting date onward.
• Managers should avoid presenting the resilience benchmarks to investors as amended legal minimums unless the fund’s governing documents, disclosures or risk limits separately require that treatment; market commentary from respondents indicated concern that the 10-business-day trigger could operate as a de facto limit in practice.

What changed

The final guidance retains the European Commission’s market-resilience WLA benchmarks: 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs. These levels sit above the Money Market Funds Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1131) minimum WLA requirements of 15% for VNAV MMFs and 30% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs; the existing daily liquid asset minimums remain 7.5% and 10%, respectively.

Key dates

2026-06-08

CSSF consultation on proposed guidance was published.

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholder responses to the consultation.

2026-10-30

CSSF published the final guidance and confirmed a three-month implementation period.

2027-01-30 Deadline

End of the three-month implementation period calculated from publication of the final guidance; affected firms should have implemented the guidance by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify each affected MMF's classification under Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 and map its current WLA and DLA monitoring against both the binding MMFR minima and the applicable 20% or 40% market-resilience benchmark.
• Compliance and risk teams may wish to update liquidity-risk policies, escalation thresholds, governance papers and management information to address enhanced vigilance when WLA approaches or falls below the benchmark.
• Managers should incorporate the 20% VNAV and 40% PD CNAV/LVNAV levels into Article 28 MMFR stress-testing methodology, scenarios, documentation and vulnerability-remediation processes.
• Firms should establish controls to identify a breach lasting more than 10 business days and to prepare timely CSSF notifications containing the causes, expected duration, justification and relevant Article 28(4) and (5) measures.
• Boards, conducting officers and relevant risk committees may wish to review whether internal decision-making and escalation procedures are sufficiently reinforced for prolonged or substantial deviations.
• Firms should distinguish clearly in investor, regulatory and internal reporting between binding MMFR liquidity minima and the CSSF's supervisory market-resilience benchmarks, since the latter are not new statutory minimum ratios.
• Luxembourg MMF managers should assess operational readiness during the three-month implementation period and retain evidence of implementation, monitoring and supervisory communications.

What changed

The final guidance largely confirms the consultation proposal and introduces only slight clarifications. MMF managers should incorporate market-resilience WLA levels of 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for PD CNAV and LVNAV MMFs into liquidity-risk management and Article 28 MMFR stress-testing processes. These levels operate as supervisory and risk-management benchmarks above the MMFR minimum WLA ratios of 15% for VNAV MMFs and 30% for PD CNAV and LVNAV MMFs; the minimum daily liquid asset ratios remain 7.5% for VNAV MMFs and 10% for PD CNAV and LVNAV MMFs.

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission issued its call for technical advice to the European Supervisory Authorities on targeted simplification of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

2026-07-01

ESMA launched its consultation on selected Taxonomy KPIs and proposed simplification measures.

2026-08-12 Deadline

ESMA’s consultation period closed.

2026-10-29

ESMA submitted its Final Report and technical advice to the European Commission for consideration in the review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should continue applying the currently effective Taxonomy Regulation and Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act until any Commission amendment enters into force.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of the Disclosures Delegated Act and assess any subsequent delegated act, scrutiny period, entry-into-force date and transitional provisions before changing reporting controls.
• Corporate reporting teams may wish to model the effect of an R&D-only mandatory OpEx KPI, including the IAS 38 or national-GAAP population, numerator mapping and interaction with existing materiality reliefs.
• Groups should inventory parent and subsidiary business lines, assess whether secondary businesses could exceed a cumulative 10% consolidated-turnover threshold, and prepare for possible parent-regime and simplified secondary-business templates.
• Asset managers and other financial undertakings should avoid treating the proposed absence of voluntary OpEx reporting as current law and should document the basis for any voluntary Taxonomy metrics under existing disclosure and anti-greenwashing controls.
• Issuers and sustainability-reporting teams should review sustainable-bond, internal-sales, contextual-information and CapEx Type C data processes so they can adapt if the Commission adopts ESMA’s recommendations.
• Reporting governance should track whether any future voluntary alternative metric is reconciled to the mandatory KPI and subject to applicable ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures.

What changed

ESMA recommends that the mandatory Article 8 Taxonomy Regulation OpEx KPI focus on non-capitalised R&D expenditure, with the denominator based on expenditure recognised under IAS 38 or relevant national GAAP and the numerator drawn from the existing Annex I categories. It does not recommend introducing a mandatory voluntary OpEx+ metric, and advises against allowing financial undertakings, including asset managers, to use an OpEx KPI voluntarily for Taxonomy disclosures.

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA CP26/39 published and consultation opens.

2026-12-17 Deadline

Deadline for responses to CP26/39.

2027-03-18

PS26/2 final rules and guidance on operational incident and material third-party reporting come into force; the CTP-related enhanced reporting framework is expected to apply from this date.

2027-01-01

FCA plans to publish a Feedback Statement confirming the income-sharing metric and percentage for the equity CTP.

2027-04-01

FCA expects to publish its Policy Statement on how shared equity-CTP income is distributed among data contributors during spring 2027.

Suggested considerations

• Trading venues and other potential data contributors should consider modelling how alternative allocation metrics, including data contribution, trading activity, quote quality or coverage measures, could affect their expected income-sharing receipts.
• Prospective equity CTP bidders should consider the proposed distribution methodology, the five-year concession structure and the resulting revenue, accounting, data-governance and contractual controls in procurement and operating models.
• CTPs and firms providing critical technology or data services to CTPs should map operational incidents against the PS26/2 thresholds and assess whether current escalation, evidence retention and regulatory-notification procedures can support reporting as soon as practicable.
• CTPs should consider whether their incident-management playbooks distinguish standard and enhanced reporting, capture significant status changes and support submissions through the FCA’s prescribed reporting channel.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting responses to the FCA consultation by 17 December 2026, particularly on allocation fairness, data-contribution measurement, treatment of different contributor classes and the operational burden of enhanced incident reporting.
• Compliance teams may wish to track the early-2027 Feedback Statement on the income metric and percentage, the spring-2027 Policy Statement on distribution rules and the separate final rules on systematic-internaliser quotes.

What changed

The FCA proposes to add Handbook rules and guidance governing how the portion of equity CTP income specified in the five-year concession agreement is allocated among data contributors. The proposed allocation rules would apply regardless of the income metric or percentage ultimately specified in that agreement; the FCA plans to confirm the income-sharing percentage and metric in an early-2027 Feedback Statement and the distribution rules in a spring-2027 Policy Statement.

Key dates

2025-10-21

The FCA commenced High Court proceedings in the Business and Property Division against Huobi Global S.A. and persons unknown concerning alleged breaches of section 21 FSMA.

2026-02-10

The FCA publicly announced its enforcement action against HTX for unlawful cryptoasset promotions to UK consumers.

2026-10-29

The FCA announced the High Court settlement and undertakings; HTX was no longer active in the UK, with no deposits or new UK registrations permitted.

2027-10-01

The FCA publication states that cryptoassets remain largely unregulated in the UK, apart from anti-money-laundering and financial-promotion requirements, until October 2027.

2031-10-21

The court order provides that Huobi Global's undertakings continue until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all UK-facing cryptoasset communications across websites, applications, email, affiliates, influencers and social-media platforms, including communications published by overseas group entities.
• Firms should consider documenting the legal basis for each UK financial promotion under section 21 FSMA, including the firm's authorisation status, any authorised-person approval and any applicable exemption under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005.
• Overseas firms should consider geo-blocking and other durable controls for UK users, while testing whether content, account access, app availability, search visibility or social-media activity remains capable of having an effect in the UK.
• Marketing and compliance teams may wish to implement pre-publication approval, withdrawal and monitoring controls for third-party affiliates, influencers and social-media operators, with records showing who approved each communication and where it was distributed.
• Firms with existing UK users should consider reviewing account-access, deposit, withdrawal and customer-communications arrangements so that any UK exit strategy does not leave consumers exposed to continuing unlawful promotions.
• Cryptoasset businesses may wish to monitor the FCA Warning List and Firm Checker and assess whether their UK activities could also trigger UK anti-money-laundering registration or other authorisation requirements.

What changed

This is a settlement and enforcement outcome rather than a new generally applicable rule. Huobi Global is bound by court undertakings not to knowingly, directly or indirectly, communicate or cause to be communicated financial promotions contravening section 21 FSMA, including promotions on HTX websites, software applications and social-media platforms. HTX will not target, solicit or actively seek to engage UK consumers; UK consumers can no longer deposit funds or open new accounts, and residual-asset withdrawals are addressed through HTX's published arrangements.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA published Fair value in consumer finance and associated supervisory commentary; the examples are effective as supervisory guidance and do not create new rules.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every financial and non-financial charge across each product's full customer journey and lifetime, including contingent, arrears, repeat and cumulative charges.
• Firms should consider refreshing fair value assessments to reconcile current pricing and charging data with quantified or otherwise evidenced customer benefits, product limitations, service quality and foreseeable risks.
• Firms may wish to document how assumptions, management information, customer outcomes and governance challenge support each fair value conclusion, with clear ownership and audit trails.
• Firms should consider segmenting analysis by relevant customer groups, including vulnerability characteristics, credit risk, product usage, distribution channel and customers experiencing financial difficulty, and testing whether outcomes differ materially.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish monitoring for arrears, complaints, cancellations, usage, enquiries, refunds, waivers, repeat charges and customer understanding, with defined escalation thresholds and remediation options.
• Firms should consider testing whether fees and charges are communicated clearly, prominently and at the point customers need them to make informed decisions, including through customer-understanding testing.
• Firms may wish to review controls for grace periods, charge caps, fee waivers and refunds and evidence that those controls are appropriately designed, operating effectively and reducing foreseeable harm.
• Where late or missed repayment charges are justified by reasonable costs, firms should consider documenting the cost methodology, evidence relied upon and relationship between the methodology and the charge level, alongside the separate fair value assessment.

What changed

The publication does not amend the FCA Handbook or create new mandatory actions. It consolidates good and poor practice under the existing price and value outcome in PRIN 2A.4 and FG22/5, including the requirement for manufacturers under PRIN 2A.4.2R(2) to conduct and regularly review value assessments at intervals appropriate to the product's nature and duration.

Key dates

2026-10-29

The Bank of England published the consultation and draft Supervisory Statement on CCP acceptance of tokenised collateral.

2027-02-12 Deadline

Consultation closes; responses on the draft supervisory expectations and wider tokenised-collateral policy are requested by this date.

2028-01-01

Target year for the Bank’s planned RT2 synchronisation capability supporting settlement between digital-asset ledgers and central bank money; this is a stated implementation target, not a compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• CCPs and prospective CCP applicants should consider whether tokenised versions of currently accepted or eligible collateral would constitute new collateral requiring notification to, or permission from, the Bank under the existing supervisory and margin-permission processes.
• Compliance, legal and risk teams should consider mapping each proposed tokenised collateral arrangement end to end, including issuance, representation of rights, custody, transfer, settlement finality, redemption, liquidation and default management.
• CCPs should consider preparing evidence on valuation methodology, price reliability, liquidity, conversion between tokenised and conventional forms, repo or outright-sale access, stress-market behaviour and concentration treatment across identical underlying assets.
• CCPs and their service providers should consider legal opinions addressing ownership, enforceability, insolvency treatment, settlement finality under the Settlement Finality Regulations, transfer restrictions and the relationship between ledger records, CSD records and underlying assets.
• Operational-resilience assessments should consider ledger, bridge, smart-contract, custodian, wallet, key-management and other third-party failure scenarios, including alternative access, transfer, liquidation and recovery arrangements.
• CCPs should consider whether proposed arrangements require changes to models, parameters, margining, collateral haircuts, default-management procedures, investment-policy controls, outsourcing oversight or governance approvals.
• Affected firms and infrastructure providers may wish to submit responses to the Bank’s consultation by 2027-02-12, particularly on practical barriers, wider tokenised-asset use cases and whether the proposed expectations remain suitable for future collateral types.
• Firms operating cross-border collateral arrangements should consider the interaction with parallel international developments, including ESMA’s October 2026 call for evidence on tokenised collateral in EU central clearing.

What changed

The Bank proposes to assess tokenised collateral through the existing supervisory process for new collateral, including where a tokenised version has risk characteristics that differ from the approved non-tokenised asset because of its delivery method, credit risk or liquidity profile. The draft Supervisory Statement adopts a technology-neutral, outcomes-focused and proportionate approach: CCPs would need to demonstrate that tokenised collateral can be valued, transferred, controlled and realised within required timeframes in normal and stressed conditions.

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission requested technical advice from the ESAs on the review of Article 8 Taxonomy disclosures.

2026-10-29

The EBA published its final technical advice and submitted its report to the European Commission.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should treat the publication as forward-looking technical advice and should not cease reporting the Fees and Commissions KPI, Trading Book KPI or other existing disclosures unless and until the Commission adopts applicable amendments or transitional measures.
• Firms should map current Taxonomy data lineage, controls, templates and calculation logic against each proposed change so that implementation can be accelerated if the Commission follows the EBA advice.
• Banking groups should assess how parent-level KPIs and material secondary-activity KPIs could affect consolidation methodologies, entity-level data ownership and audit trails.
• Investment firms should inventory fees, commissions and other services currently included in the relevant KPIs, particularly capital-markets-related services, and model the effect of the proposed narrower approach.
• Credit institutions should review Green Asset Ratio template production and identify duplicated or low-value data points that may be removed or harmonised in a future delegated act.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178, the related Omnibus simplification measures and any final ESA or Commission guidance before updating policies, public disclosures or regulatory reporting systems.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to engage with the Commission consultation or legislative process and preserve evidence supporting current reporting interpretations during the transition.

What changed

The EBA recommends removing the Fees and Commissions KPI and the Trading Book KPI from Taxonomy disclosure requirements. It proposes simplifying the investment firms’ other-services KPI, including capital-markets-related services, and aligning grandfathering provisions with Regulation (EU) 2023/2631 on European Green Bonds, but only for bonds issued under that Regulation. The EBA advises against introducing the operational expenditure KPI of non-financial undertakings into financial undertakings’ KPI calculations.

Key dates

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2026-10-28

FOMC statement released; target federal funds range maintained at 3.75% to 4.00% and ample-reserves policy continued.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and risk teams may wish to record the October 28, 2026 target range of 3.75% to 4.00% and the 10-2 vote in regulatory change-management and market-risk records.
• Firms should consider reviewing interest-rate, basis, liquidity and funding-risk limits against scenarios involving a further 25-basis-point increase, including a possible December 2026 hike suggested by independent market commentary.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to assess the effect of persistently elevated rates on borrower affordability, refinancing risk, delinquency assumptions, fair-lending monitoring and customer communications.
• Treasury and finance teams should consider validating the treatment of the unchanged policy rate in transfer-pricing, liquidity-stress, valuation, hedge-accounting and capital-planning models.
• Broker-dealers, asset managers and leveraged funds may wish to reassess margin, collateral, redemption-liquidity and counterparty exposures under higher-for-longer rate scenarios.
• Compliance teams should consider monitoring the forthcoming FOMC implementation note and subsequent Federal Reserve communications for any operational details affecting reserve management or money-market conditions.
• Firms should consider documenting the distinction between this policy decision and a new regulatory rule: the statement contains no new prudential ratio, disclosure, reporting or customer-protection requirement.

What changed

The FOMC made no change to the federal funds target range, which remains 3.75% to 4.00%, and did not announce a change to its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. The statement upgraded its description of economic activity to expanding at a strong pace and characterized productivity growth and capital investment as strong or robust, while stating that inflation remains elevated. The Committee emphasized that it will assess additional information in determining the policy stance needed to return inflation to its 2% goal. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M.

Key dates

2026-12-07 Deadline

First phased requirements under the amended RTS on settlement discipline and related ESMA guidelines apply to allocations and confirmations, including electronic, standardised and machine-readable communications, subject to the temporary technical disruption exception.

2027-07-01 Deadline

Additional phased requirements under the amended RTS on settlement discipline become applicable, as specified in the regulation’s transitional provisions.

2027-10-11 Deadline

Regulation (EU) 2025/2075 applies and the EU standard securities settlement cycle changes from T+2 to T+1; the final phase of related settlement-layer requirements also applies.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map every affected transaction type, market, currency, venue, CSD, custodian, broker, client and outsourcing provider across the full trading and settlement ecosystem rather than assessing only internal readiness.
• Compliance and operations teams may wish to confirm whether allocations and confirmations can be completed on trade date and transmitted through electronic, standardised and machine-readable channels from 7 December 2026, including accurate place-of-settlement data where required.
• Firms should assess and test ISO or other applicable international messaging standards, matching platforms, standing settlement instruction governance, exception handling and the documented process for temporary technical disruptions.
• Firms should identify manual processing steps that cannot reliably operate within the shortened timetable and consider automation, straight-through processing, reconciliation, controls over data quality and resilient fallback arrangements.
• Firms should obtain implementation commitments and test plans from clients, brokers, custodians, CSD participants, CSDs, CCPs, vendors and outsourcing providers, with evidence of end-to-end testing and defect remediation.
• Firms should review liquidity, collateral, margin, FX funding, corporate-action, securities-lending, fund dealing and investment-operation processes for the reduced interval between trade and settlement.
• Firms should maintain a regulatory change plan covering the phased milestones on 7 December 2026, 1 July 2027 and 11 October 2027, with senior management oversight, documented risk acceptance and escalation of unresolved dependencies.

What changed

Regulation (EU) 2025/2075 amends Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) and provides for the EU settlement cycle to apply on a T+1 basis from 11 October 2027. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1536 amends the RTS on settlement discipline in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1229, with phased application beginning on 7 December 2026. From 7 December 2026, the allocation and confirmation process must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards, with machine-readable communications required except during temporary technical disruptions.

Key dates

2026-10-23

ADGM’s Registration Authority announced the enforcement action and the total USD 88,000 penalties against MCA Auditors and its registered Audit Principal.

Suggested considerations

• Registered audit firms should consider performing a documented file-by-file review of risk assessments, fraud-risk responses, group-audit instructions and evaluations, communications with those charged with governance, and sufficient appropriate audit evidence for material balances and disclosures.
• Registered Audit Principals should consider documenting substantive involvement at planning, risk assessment, supervision, review, consultation, resolution of significant matters and completion stages, rather than relying on evidence of a final sign-off alone.
• Firms should consider mapping each engagement to the applicable requirements in the Companies Regulations (Auditors) Rules 2023 and the relevant International Standards on Auditing, with evidence of review and clearance of identified deficiencies.
• Audit firms should consider maintaining a formal root-cause analysis, remediation plan, ownership allocation, target dates and effectiveness testing process so that remediation can be demonstrated during a subsequent RA inspection.
• Audit committees and other those charged with governance at ADGM-registered entities should consider challenging the auditor on fraud risks, group-audit scope, significant judgments, material evidence and the registered principal’s oversight before approving or relying on the audit.
• ADGM audit firms should consider preparing for continued RA monitoring and inspections, including ensuring that working papers and governance communications are complete, contemporaneous, retrievable and internally consistent.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or amendment. It applies the Companies Regulations (Auditors) Rules 2023, including the obligations for Registered Auditors and Registered Audit Principals to conduct audit work in accordance with applicable technical and professional standards, including International Standards on Auditing, and to exercise due skill, care and diligence. The action signals that ADGM inspections will assess the complete audit evidence trail and the registered principal’s documented involvement across the engagement, not merely the final audit opinion.

Key dates

2025-10-22

The SFC issued its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the UT Code.

2026-10-07

The SFC published consultation conclusions announcing the enhancements to Hong Kong's retail fund regime.

2026-10-16

The revised UT Code was gazetted.

2026-11-01 Deadline

The revised UT Code takes effect. New funds must comply with the revised requirements immediately, and the 12-month transitional period for existing funds begins.

2027-10-31 Deadline

The 12-month transitional period ends. Existing funds generally must comply with the revised UT Code requirements by this date.

2027-11-01 Deadline

Existing funds continuing to be offered to the Hong Kong public must use KFSs containing the enhanced disclosure requirements after expiry of the transitional period.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each existing fund against the revised UT Code requirements and determine which requirements fall within the 12-month transitional period.
• Managers should consider documenting whether each fund will use the existing net derivative exposure approach or the new VaR approach, and assess the required models, data, governance, validation, stress testing, limits and reporting processes.
• Managers should consider reviewing fund asset liquidity, portfolio liquidity and redemption terms, including whether daily-dealing funds investing mainly in less liquid assets require anti-dilution liquidity management tools.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory available liquidity management tools, assess their calibration and activation triggers, and verify that the fund documentation and operational procedures describe their use consistently.
• MMF managers should consider testing compliance with the revised minimum credit-quality standards and eligible-instrument and deposit requirements, including the additional safeguards applicable to constant-NAV MMFs.
• Fund boards, trustees and management companies may wish to review governance and escalation arrangements for derivatives exposure, liquidity risk and use of liquidity management tools.
• Managers should consider updating KFSs, offering documents, product classifications, liquidity disclosures and related marketing materials using the revised SFC templates.
• Applications for new funds submitted from 1 November 2026 should be prepared against the revised UT Code and updated application guides rather than the former requirements.

What changed

The revised UT Code introduces a Value-at-Risk approach alongside the existing net derivative exposure approach, with accompanying calculation methodology and standards. Funds complying with the applicable NDE or VaR limits will generally be treated as non-complex products, although the SFC retains discretion to classify products as complex based on their features and risks.

Key dates

2026-10-28

ADGM published the Guidance on Crypto Mining Activities in and from ADGM under section 23 of the Commercial Licensing Regulations 2025.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering establishment or continued operation in ADGM should perform the RA pre-application self-assessment and document why their activities fall within commercial mining rather than an FSRA-regulated financial service.
• Operators should assess whether they require or should apply for the dedicated commercial licence associated with activity code 7230 and should avoid representing the licence as an authorisation to conduct regulated financial services.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare an up-to-date corporate structure and ultimate-beneficial-owner information for RA review, together with governance documentation proportionate to the scale and risk of the operation.
• Operators should identify all blockchain addresses used to receive mining rewards and establish controlled procedures for making the required confidential on-chain address disclosures to the RA.
• ADGM-headquartered groups should map global mining activities, reporting lines, outsourced infrastructure, jurisdictional controls and board oversight so that the ADGM entity can demonstrate reasonable supervision of overseas operations.
• Firms should review whether staking, validator, custody, brokerage, token issuance, investment management or other associated activities separately require FSRA permission or create an additional regulatory perimeter.
• Operators may wish to monitor the RA’s forthcoming consultation on the second-phase regulatory framework and preserve records supporting their current perimeter analysis, licensing basis, governance and operational-risk controls.
• Firms should consider the practical implications identified in independent commentary, including operational resilience, cybersecurity, infrastructure security, energy management, transparent service terms and any applicable UAE federal tax, accounting and AML/CFT requirements, without treating those commentary points as additional requirements expressly created by this publication.

What changed

Commercial crypto mining conducted in or from ADGM is associated with dedicated RA commercial activity code 7230 and requires the applicable commercial licensing pathway. The Guidance is technology-neutral and covers Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake and future consensus mechanisms. It establishes a pre-application self-assessment to help applicants distinguish mining from FSRA-regulated financial activities, and highlights expectations concerning corporate structure, ultimate beneficial ownership, and confidential disclosure of on-chain addresses used for reward flows.

Key dates

2026-10-28

MAS published its statement reinforcing banks’ existing environmental-risk management expectations in the context of transboundary haze, pollution and deforestation.

Suggested considerations

• Banks should consider mapping customers, counterparties and financed activities that may be linked to open burning, deforestation, peatland development or other haze-related pollution, at both customer and portfolio level.
• Compliance and risk teams may wish to establish a process for capturing, validating and escalating relevant NEA information and notices issued under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act.
• Banks should consider enhancing customer due diligence for potentially haze-linked customers, including obtaining evidence of land ownership or control, fire-prevention and response arrangements, concession and supply-chain information, environmental permits, incident history and remediation measures.
• Banks may wish to document customer engagement, responses, management decisions and escalation criteria so that the rationale for continuing, conditioning, reducing or terminating exposure is demonstrable.
• Credit committees and relationship teams should consider incorporating environmental-risk findings into new-financing approvals, renewals, covenant-setting, pricing, collateral assessments and ongoing monitoring.
• For higher-risk customers, banks may wish to consider enhanced measures such as site visits, independent environmental expertise, satellite or geospatial monitoring and contractual rights to obtain information or suspend further drawdowns.
• Banks should consider defining governance triggers for cases involving suspected or confirmed breaches, with senior-management or board escalation where exposure limits or relationship exit is contemplated.
• Banks may wish to review public environmental-risk disclosures and transition plans for consistency with the strengthened supervisory focus, while recognising that the statement itself does not create a new disclosure deadline.

What changed

MAS has expressly linked banks’ environmental-risk processes to haze-related pollution and deforestation risks. Banks should consider relevant information released by the National Environment Agency under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act and engage customers potentially connected to haze-producing activities to obtain sufficient information about their role, including controls to prevent, detect and stop fires.

Key dates

2012-12-31

MISMEL was licensed by the DFSA as a credit rating agency.

2023-12-01

Beginning of the period during which MISMEL reported seven inadvertent data-disclosure incidents to the DFSA; the source specifies December 2023 but not an exact day.

2026-05-31

End of the incident period described by the DFSA; the source specifies May 2026 but not an exact day.

2026-10-28

The DFSA announced the enforcement action and USD 585,825 penalty against MISMEL.

Suggested considerations

• Credit rating agencies should consider mapping confidential-information flows, permitted uses, recipients and disclosure exceptions against DFSA COB 8.9.1 and COB 8.9.2.
• Compliance and technology teams may wish to test email, endpoint, access-control, data-loss-prevention and external-recipient controls using realistic scenarios involving inadvertent disclosures.
• Firms should consider documenting compensating controls and an approved replacement before disabling or materially changing any security tool, with formal risk acceptance where continuity cannot be achieved.
• Control owners may wish to review incident detection, escalation, investigation and regulatory-notification processes, including whether repeated near misses are aggregated and reported to senior management and the DFSA where applicable.
• Senior management and compliance teams should consider reviewing employee training, attestations, supervision and disciplinary arrangements so that confidentiality obligations are demonstrably enforced and not merely documented.
• Credit rating agencies may wish to retain sufficient records and audit trails to evidence the operation and testing of confidentiality controls, noting the DFSA Rulebook requirement to maintain relevant records for at least six years.
• Firms outside the credit-rating sector should consider the enforcement action as an indicator of DFSA expectations for proportionate data-confidentiality governance, although the cited COB 8.9 requirements specifically apply to credit rating agencies.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or prospective regulatory amendment. The DFSA found that MISMEL failed to implement and maintain adequate systems and controls to safeguard confidential information and failed to ensure that employees did not disclose it. The relevant DFSA framework requires a credit rating agency to maintain policies, procedures and controls preventing use of confidential information for unauthorised purposes and disclosure to other persons, subject to limited exceptions such as prior written consent or a legal obligation; COB 8.9.1 also addresses pending...