May 2026 Regulatory Updates

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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...

Key dates

29 May 2026

– CFTC issues the policy statement on listing of perpetual contracts and an order permitting a DCM to list a perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of bitcoin

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Policy statement is published in the Federal Register; from that point, DCMs and market participants can treat it as the Commission’s formal articulation of expectations for perpetual contract listings

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

29 May 2026

- CBI issues and publishes the warning notice identifying Fire Financial Services Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised firm and clone of the legitimate Fire Financial Services Limited (C58301), and lists it under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013

Suggested considerations

• Review and update internal fraud‑risk and financial crime risk assessments to explicitly cover clone‑firm risks, including inheritance scams and impersonation of authorised entities.
• Integrate the specific domains, email addresses, and phone numbers listed in the CBI notice into fraud‑monitoring tools, allow‑/block‑lists, and case‑management systems, and ensure they are treated as high‑risk indicators.
• Ensure front‑line, call‑centre, and relationship‑management staff receive targeted training and briefing on this specific clone case and on common clone‑firm red flags, including requests related to inheritance payments and use of unofficial domains.
• Enhance onboarding and counterparty due diligence procedures to include systematic checks against the CBI “unauthorised firms” list and the CBI public registers, especially where firms claim Irish regulation or use names similar to existing authorised firms.
• Update third‑party and introducer due diligence controls to verify that any firm referring business or presenting as an intermediary is properly authorised and not listed as unauthorised under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.

What changed

• - CBI has formally identified Fire Financial Services Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised entity that is not authorised to provide banking business or payment services in Ireland and is misusing the...
• CBI has published specific fraud indicators associated with this clone, including website domains (e.g.
• The warning explicitly states that the clone firm appears to be running an inheritance scam, including the use of fake documentation allegedly from third parties, which should be treated as a red...
• CBI reiterates that there is no connection between the legitimate authorised Fire Financial Services Limited (C58301) and this fraudulent entity, thereby clarifying the status of the genuine firm and...
• The firm’s name is formally published on CBI’s list of unauthorised firms under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, increasing regulatory expectation that firms...

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

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.

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.

Key dates

Late May 2026

– A CFTC‑registered designated contract market files a federal complaint after being threatened with impending state enforcement under Rhode Island gambling laws

Friday, Late May 2026

– Rhode Island files a parallel state‑court complaint seeking significant civil penalties and demanding that prediction markets “stand down” and “disgorge their profits.”

28 May 2026

– The CFTC files a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block state enforcement and reiterate its claim of exclusive jurisdiction over CFTC‑registered prediction markets

Suggested considerations

• Review current and planned event or prediction‑market contracts to confirm that they are structured, documented, and marketed as commodity derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than as gaming or wagering products.
• Update internal legal and compliance memoranda on federal preemption and CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” to reflect the CFTC’s latest public position and the ongoing Rhode Island and related state cases.
• Map state‑law exposure for event contracts by conducting a jurisdictional sweep of gambling, gaming, bucket‑shop, and “games of chance” statutes for key states where customers or operations are located, with particular focus on Rhode Island, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota.
• Enhance product‑approval and new‑business committees’ procedures so that, before launching event contracts, they explicitly document CEA coverage, CFTC oversight, and a preemption analysis versus relevant state gambling laws.
• For CFTC‑registered contract markets, establish and maintain a litigation and regulatory‑strategy playbook for responding to state attorney‑general investigations or enforcement demands, including criteria for when to seek CFTC support or intervention.

What changed

• - The CFTC has formally sought to intervene in a U.S. District Court case in Rhode Island to halt the state’s attempt to apply state gambling laws and seek civil penalties against a CFTC‑registered...
• The Commission has publicly reaffirmed that event contracts traded on CFTC‑registered exchanges are “commodity derivatives” squarely within the CFTC’s regulatory remit under the Commodity Exchange...
• The CFTC is explicitly characterizing its authority over CFTC‑registered prediction markets as “exclusive jurisdiction,” signaling that state gambling regulators and attorneys general should not...
• The Rhode Island dispute is identified as part of a broader pattern of state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, following similar or related litigation in Arizona, Connecticut,...
• The enforcement posture indicates that CFTC‑registered contract markets facing state actions can expect active CFTC litigation support when states attempt to apply gambling or gaming statutes to...

Key dates

03 January 2025

– ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) enters into force, starting the formal legislative timeline and triggering preparatory obligations for future ESG rating providers

02 July 2026

– ESGRR applies and the main substantive requirements become effective; from this date entities have one month to notify ESMA of their intention to apply for authorisation or registration as ESG rating providers

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

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

– Consultation period for CP12/25 closed, with industry feedback informing PS15/26

02 March 2026

– Changes relating to pension obligation risk and market/counterparty credit risk methodologies and associated reporting expectations take effect

01 January 2027

– Basel 3.1 standards are implemented in the UK and the retirement of the refined Pillar 2A methodology takes effect; Phase 1 Pillar 2A changes for credit and operational risk are aligned to this Basel 3.1 implementation date

2027 (TBD)

– PRA plans to publish a further consultation paper (Phase 2) on an in‑depth review of individual Pillar 2A methodologies

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

– Last date for software houses to email the BEEDS queries mailbox to request access to the BEEDS UAT environment for this specific UAT window

Mid June 2026 Deadline

– Due date window for LIVE submissions of end‑May 2026 statistical data under Taxonomy v1.3.1 via BEEDS LIVE

02 June 2026

– Opening of BEEDS UAT environment for the June testing window under Taxonomy v1.3.1 FINAL

12 June 2026

– Closing of BEEDS UAT environment for the June testing window

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.

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...

Key dates

19 February 2025

- SFC issues its ASPIRe roadmap, with “Access” identified as one of five pillars and VA regulatory expansion flagged as a strategic priority

27 June 2025

- Consultation papers published on legislative proposals to regulate VA dealing and VA custodian service providers, setting the broader perimeter for VA intermediaries

24 December 2025

- Consultation conclusions issued on legislative proposals to regulate VA dealing and VA custodian service providers, confirming direction for those regimes

24 December 2025

- FSTB and SFC launch further consultation on VA advisory and VA management regimes, which has now concluded

2026 (TBD – bill introduction)

- FSTB and SFC aim to introduce a bill into the Legislative Council to establish VA advisory and VA management regimes under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615)

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a gap analysis comparing current or planned virtual asset advisory and management activities against Type 4 and Type 9 requirements under the Securities and Futures Ordinance to identify where equivalent capabilities, controls and governance will be required under the new VA regimes.
• Map all group entities and business lines that provide VA-related advice, research, recommendations or portfolio management to clients in or from Hong Kong, and determine which entities will need licensing or authorisation under the forthcoming AMLO-based regimes.
• Initiate early engagement with the SFC (e.g. via pre-application meetings or WINGS enquiries) to clarify how existing licences, business models and cross-border arrangements will be treated under the new VA advisory and management regimes.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance AML/CTF frameworks, including customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening and ongoing review procedures, to ensure they are robust enough for VA-specific risks anticipated under AMLO-based regulation.
• Update internal policies and procedures on suitability, product due diligence, risk disclosure, conflicts of interest and best execution to explicitly cover VA advisory and VA management services in line with standards applied to traditional securities and funds.

What changed

• - The Hong Kong Government and SFC have confirmed that dedicated regulatory regimes for VA advisory services and VA management services will be created under the Anti-Money Laundering and...
• The regulatory scope and standards of the VA advisory regime will be aligned with Type 4 “advising on securities” regulated activity under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, applying a “same...
• The regulatory scope and standards of the VA management regime will be aligned with Type 9 “asset management” regulated activity under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, implying broadly...
• The consultation received broad market support across 51 responding stakeholders, and the SFC has treated this as a mandate to proceed to finalisation of the detailed legislative proposals and...
• The new VA advisory and management regimes will sit alongside existing and proposed VA regimes for: VA trading platforms, stablecoin issuers, VA dealing and VA custody, forming an end-to-end...

Key dates

05 March 2026

- CBI publishes its Discussion Paper on tokenisation and distributed ledger technology in financial services, initiating a structured consultation on tokenised markets, funds, money and payments

26 May 2026

- Deputy Governor speech sets out the CBI’s strategic approach to tokenised finance, confirming that consultation feedback will inform subsequent policy, supervisory expectations and potential rule changes

05 June 2026

- Closing date for submissions to the CBI Discussion Paper on tokenisation and DLT, after which CBI will prepare a feedback statement and refine its policy stance

TBD (post‑June 2026)

- CBI feedback statement on the tokenisation Discussion Paper expected, likely followed by more granular guidance and potential adjustments to supervisory and authorisation processes for tokenised activities

Suggested considerations

• Map all current and planned tokenisation and DLT initiatives (including pilots and proofs of concept) across the group and identify which EU and Irish regulatory regimes they fall under (MiFID II, UCITS, AIFMD, CRR/CRD, PSD2/PSR, Solvency II, MiCA, DORA, etc.).
• Perform a regulatory gap analysis to confirm that tokenised products and services are fully captured within existing licensing permissions and assess whether any variation of permission, new authorisation, or recognition as a market infrastructure is required.
• Review and update governance arrangements so that boards and senior management explicitly oversee tokenisation strategies, risk appetite, and the use of DLT, including ensuring clear allocation of responsibilities under the firm’s senior manager or fitness and probity framework.
• Integrate tokenisation‑specific risks into the firm’s risk management framework, covering legal enforceability of tokens, smart‑contract risk, cyber and operational resilience, data integrity, interoperability, concentration risk in technology providers, and settlement and counterparty risk.
• Review outsourcing and third‑party risk management frameworks to ensure that DLT platform providers, smart‑contract developers, node operators and custodians are treated as critical or important outsourced service providers where appropriate, with robust contractual, oversight and exit provisions.

What changed

• - The CBI formally recognises tokenisation and shared, programmable ledgers as a likely core infrastructure of the future financial system and signals that regulation will evolve to treat tokenised...
• The speech confirms that CBI’s regulatory approach will be “technology‑neutral but not technology‑blind”, indicating that existing EU and Irish rules (e.g.
• The CBI emphasises the need to keep central bank money at the core of tokenised finance, aligning its stance with Eurosystem work on wholesale and retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) and...
• The speech reinforces that tokenised instruments representing traditional financial assets (securities, deposits, fund units) will generally be treated as regulated financial instruments, triggering...
• The CBI highlights operational resilience, cyber risk, interoperability and smart‑contract governance as critical supervisory focus areas for tokenised finance infrastructure and platforms.

Key dates

2026-05-22

FDIC and Federal Reserve Board approved joint agency feedback letters on the 2025 resolution plan submissions; Chairman Hill issued his statement

2026-06-01

Expected timeframe for the FDIC to propose amendments to the IDI Rule, described as coming in the following weeks

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and resolution-planning teams may wish to review the forthcoming FDIC IDI Rule proposal closely for potential changes to large-bank resolution expectations.
• Firms subject to Title I planning may wish to reassess prior resolution-plan assumptions, including any areas likely to be revisited through joint FDIC-Federal Reserve feedback.
• Large banking organizations may wish to map which existing resolution-related policies or internal playbooks could be affected if the FDIC rescinds or modifies current requirements.
• Teams may wish to monitor whether the FDIC and Federal Reserve Board signal changes to the structure, scope, or cadence of future Title I submissions and feedback letters.

What changed

The announcement does not create a new binding rule or immediate compliance deadline. Instead, it confirms supervisory feedback on the 2025 resolution plans for the eight U.S. GSIBs and 56 foreign-based firms and signals that the FDIC is actively reevaluating its resolution framework. Chairman Hill said the FDIC plans to propose amendments to the IDI Rule for large insured depository institutions in the coming weeks, is reviewing other resolution-related rules and policies, and expects to engage the Federal Reserve Board on reconsidering elements of the Title I resolution planning process.

Key dates

July 2021

- Period during which Mr Ytane Mamou purchased shares in the listed company on his own account, for his wife, and for his father, and when Mr Houri acquired shares following his cousin’s recommendation, prior to takeover-related announcements

20 May 2026

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision SAN‑2026‑04 is adopted, finding insider dealing by Mr Mamou and Mr Houri and imposing fines of €30,000 and €20,000 respectively

22 May 2026

- AMF publishes the news release summarising the Enforcement Committee decision and sanctions; appeal against the decision remains possible from this date in accordance with French procedural rules

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

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

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.

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.

Key dates

21 January 1991

- Original Circular IML 91/75 on revision and remodelling of rules applicable to UCIs under the Law of 30 March 1988 is issued (subsequently amended by later circulars)

22 May 2026

- Circular CSSF 26/912 is published and Circular IML 91/75 (as amended by Circulars CSSF 05/177, 18/697, 21/790, 22/811 and 25/901) is repealed and archived

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.

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...

Key dates

31 October 2012

– Pegasus Entertainment Holdings Limited is listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong

09 January 2015

– Pegasus transfers its listing from GEM to the Main Board

25 August 2017

– Pegasus receives HK$10 million earnest money from a potential buyer of Wong’s controlling stake; on the same day, Wong starts transferring funds to his sister, who begins buying Pegasus shares

30 August 2017

– From this date, Wong sends multiple WhatsApp messages to his sister, advising on timing and price for purchasing Pegasus shares

17 October 2017

– End of the period during which Wong’s sister buys more than nine million Pegasus shares using, in large part, funds transferred by Wong

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

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

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.

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...

Key dates

21 May 2026

- OSFI publishes the backgrounder and launches a 60‑day public consultation on proposed updates to the Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline

20 July 2026 Deadline

- Consultation period closes; deadline for stakeholders to submit comments to OSFI at [email protected]

September 2026

- OSFI expects to publish the final revised Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline

01 November 2026

- Implementation date for the final guideline for banks with a fiscal year ending 31 October

01 January 2027

- Implementation date for the final guideline for banks with a fiscal year ending 31 December

Suggested considerations

• Assess whether your institution currently has, or plans to have, exposures to Group 2a crypto‑assets traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets, and map all related positions, hedges, and trading strategies.
• Review existing market‑neutral and cross‑exchange hedging strategies for crypto‑asset exposures to determine how expanded recognition of cross‑exchange hedges could change risk‑weighted assets, leverage exposure, and liquidity metrics under OSFI’s proposed treatment.
• Perform an impact assessment and scenario analysis comparing existing capital and liquidity requirements for Group 2a exposures under the current guideline versus the proposed cross‑exchange hedge recognition, quantifying potential capital relief or shifts in capital allocation.
• Update internal capital policy documentation, trading desk procedures, and risk‑management standards to incorporate the proposed hedging recognition framework, including eligibility criteria for “regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets,” subject to final OSFI requirements.
• Prepare and submit a consultation response to OSFI by 20 July 2026, highlighting any operational, risk‑measurement, model, or documentation challenges with implementing cross‑exchange hedge recognition and recommending clarifications where needed.

What changed

• - OSFI is proposing targeted revisions to the existing Capital and Liquidity Treatment of Crypto‑asset Exposures (Banking) Guideline, rather than a wholesale rewrite, in order to better reflect...
• The draft changes would explicitly recognize cross‑exchange hedging for Group 2a crypto‑assets when the instruments are traded on regulated exchanges of traditional financial assets, allowing more...
• Under the proposal, banks’ market‑neutral strategies in Group 2a crypto‑assets would receive capital treatment that more closely reflects actual economic risk, reducing instances where only partial...
• No change is proposed to the risk weights applied to Group 2a crypto‑assets, meaning existing Group 2a capital charge levels remain intact under the draft revisions.
• No change is proposed to the eligibility of Group 2a crypto‑assets as collateral, so current collateral treatment and related haircuts remain unchanged by this consultation.

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 [email protected]

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

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 [email protected] 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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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,...

Key dates

26 March 2026

- ESMA publishes the English, French, and German translations of the 2025 Guidelines on stress test scenarios under Article 28 MMFR on its website, starting the two‑month period to application

26 May 2026

- Circular CSSF 26/911 enters into force and Circular CSSF 25/877 is repealed and replaced, making the 2025 ESMA Guidelines the applicable stress testing framework in Luxembourg

30 June 2026 Deadline

- MMFs and MMF managers must apply the 2025 ESMA Guidelines for the preparation of the required MMF reporting as from the reporting date 30 June 2026 onwards, meaning that stress test calculations underlying this and subsequent reports must be based on the 2025 parameters

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.

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...