All Firms Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2026-11-03

The EAER expanded and amended the Swiss sanctions lists relating to Russia and Belarus.

2026-11-04

The Federal Council decided to adopt the EU’s 21st Russia and Belarus sanctions package and related measures.

2026-11-04

The amended sanctions lists entered into force at 23:00 Swiss time.

2026-11-05

The sectoral measures, including the strengthened crypto-sector restrictions and transaction prohibitions, entered into force.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to refresh sanctions screening against the amended Swiss Russia and Belarus lists, including customer, beneficial-owner, authorised-signatory, counterparty and payment screening records.
• Swiss crypto-sector companies should consider reviewing ownership registers, pending acquisitions, shareholder changes, control arrangements and beneficial-ownership information for Russian nationals and persons resident in Russia, including indirect acquisition structures.
• Firms should consider mapping exposure to the newly prohibited banks, financial institutions, crypto-service providers and other entities, and placing appropriate holds on affected transactions and assets pending resolution.
• Financial intermediaries may wish to document asset-freeze decisions and report affected business relationships to SECO in accordance with the applicable Ukraine sanctions ordinance.
• Where sanctions-related facts create suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing, firms should consider completing the additional clarifications required by Article 6 AMLA and filing an immediate report under Article 9 AMLA if the suspicion cannot be dispelled.
• Firms may wish to update sanctions procedures, transaction-monitoring scenarios, onboarding questionnaires and escalation controls to distinguish SECO sanctions reporting from separate AMLA reporting.
• Compliance teams may wish to review external exposure to EU sanctions controls as well as Swiss measures; independent Swiss sanctions commentary describes the regime as not being a general Russia or Belarus embargo, but highlights continuing expansion of financial, crypto, services and circumvention controls.

What changed

The EAER expanded and amended the Russia and Belarus sanctions lists, adding 254 individuals, companies and organisations to measures including asset freezes and restrictions on making funds or economic resources available. Switzerland also introduced transaction prohibitions covering, among others, 33 Russian banks, one bank in a third country, 17 financial institutions and crypto-service providers, five third-country companies, four Russian airports and two Russian ports.

Key dates

2016-07-01

Beginning of the period during which Sunshine Loans entered into contracts containing the unlawful amendment fee.

2019-03-13

Relevant fee contraventions became civil penalty provisions; civil penalties were available only for contraventions from this date.

2020-11-01

Sunshine Loans ceased charging the amendment or rescheduling fee shortly after ASIC intervention.

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

The Federal Court found that Sunshine Loans had contravened the National Credit Code by imposing, charging and accepting the prohibited fee.

2025-03-24

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sunshine Loans' liability appeal and determined the relevant appeals in ASIC's favour.

2026-03-18

The High Court unanimously dismissed Sunshine Loans' appeal concerning the recusal issue, allowing the penalty matter to return to the Federal Court.

2026-11-06

The Federal Court ordered Sunshine Loans to pay a $5.5 million civil penalty and ASIC's costs.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every fee and charge applied to small amount credit contracts and map each one to an expressly permitted category under the National Credit Code.
• Lenders should consider testing repayment-date changes, hardship arrangements, restructures and other contract variations to confirm that fees are not imposed when a consumer is not in default.
• Firms should consider conducting a historical review of fee configuration, customer communications, contract templates, payment records and general ledger data to identify comparable conduct and quantify affected consumers.
• Where potentially unlawful fees are identified, firms should consider stopping the relevant charging logic, preserving records, assessing remediation and notifying relevant governance bodies and regulators where appropriate.
• Credit licensees may wish to strengthen legal review and compliance sign-off for product terms and fee changes, including documented evidence supporting the legality of each fee.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether compliance monitoring adequately tests fee restrictions for products used by financially vulnerable consumers and whether identified issues are escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether their dispute-resolution and remediation processes enable affected consumers to obtain redress through internal complaints handling and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new legislative rule. The Court confirmed that small amount credit contract providers may impose only the fee categories permitted by the National Credit Code: an establishment fee, a monthly fee, a fee payable on default, or a government fee, charge or duty. A $35 fee for rescheduling a repayment where the consumer was not in default did not fall within those categories.

Key dates

2024-06-30

MiCAR provisions concerning asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens became applicable.

2024-12-30

Most remaining MiCAR provisions, including the principal Title II framework for offers and admissions to trading of other crypto-assets and Title V CASP requirements, became applicable.

2026-11-06

The AFM published its warning and reminder concerning public crypto-asset offerings, memecoins, white papers and marketing communications.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify every token launched, distributed or promoted to EU users and document whether the activity is an issuance, public offer, admission to trading or a crypto-asset service under MiCAR.
• Firms should consider confirming that the issuer is a legal person and recording the basis on which any MiCAR exemption is relied upon, including the relevant investor-count or EUR 1,000,000 12-month threshold where applicable.
• Before marketing or distribution, firms should consider preparing, notifying and publishing the required MiCAR white paper and ensuring that its content follows the applicable regulatory technical standards and AFM submission expectations.
• Marketing, influencer activity, website content and social-media posts should be reviewed for fair, clear and non-misleading presentation, clear advertising identification, balanced risk disclosure and consistency with the white paper.
• Firms should consider retaining approval records, versions of promotional content, influencer instructions, audience and jurisdiction controls, and evidence supporting any exemption or risk classification.
• Trading platforms and CASPs may wish to assess onboarding and listing controls for tokens whose issuer, white paper, promotional claims or market-abuse risk indicators are unclear.
• Compliance teams should consider escalation procedures for exaggerated profit claims, undisclosed paid promotion, misleading statements about token utility or supply, and conduct suggesting fraud or market manipulation.
• Firms should consider checking whether the token is instead a financial instrument or an asset-referenced token or e-money token, in which case MiFID II or MiCAR Titles III or IV and their associated authorisation requirements may apply rather than, or in addition to, the ordinary Title II analysis.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new regulation or effective date; it restates and foregrounds existing obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR). Under MiCAR Title II, a person intending to make a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or e-money token, or seeking its admission to trading, generally must be a legal person, draw up a crypto-asset white paper, notify it to the competent authority and publish it.

Key dates

2025-06-12

The SFC launched the consultation on expanding section 34 of the SFO and introducing similar restrictions under the AMLO.

2025-08-11

The consultation period closed; the SFC reported receiving nine submissions from industry associations, professional bodies, a bank and other interested parties.

2026-11-06

The SFC published its consultation conclusions, updated the FAQs and announced its intention to introduce an amendment bill into LegCo.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory legal-entity names, business names, brands, websites, domains, mobile applications, social-media handles, product names and marketing descriptions against the SFC's proposed Table A and Table B titles.
• Firms should consider mapping each relevant name to the activities actually performed, including trading, brokerage, matching, exchange, clearing, settlement, custody and virtual-asset services, and documenting whether SFO or AMLO licensing could be required.
• Unregulated entities may wish to assess whether current names imply SFC licensing, regulated status or an association with a well-known exchange, clearing house or VATP, including through abbreviations, translated names and closely resembling wording.
• Licensed VATPs and financial groups may wish to review whether group-company names, partnerships, white-label arrangements, sponsorships or marketing references could create an apparent association with an established operation that does not exist.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to monitor the amendment bill, LegCo proceedings, commencement provisions, transitional arrangements, the final restricted-title list and any future mechanism for updating that list.
• Firms considering a new name or business launch may wish to obtain independent Hong Kong legal advice and, where appropriate, seek SFC authorisation before adopting a potentially restricted title; the SFC has not announced a final application deadline or commencement date.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may be updated to require enhanced review of terms such as "exchange", "trading platform", "clearing house", "virtual asset", "digital asset", "token" and "crypto" once the amendments are enacted.

What changed

The SFC will proceed with legislative amendments to expand the existing section 34 SFO restrictions beyond titles such as "stock exchange" and "commodity exchange". The expanded scope is intended to cover titles commonly used instead of "exchange", titles describing SFO-regulated products, titles referring specifically to clearing operations, and names or acronyms implying association with established or well-known exchanges, clearing houses, VATPs or similar operations, whether located in Hong Kong or elsewhere and whether regulated or unregulated.

Key dates

2026-11-05

CFTC issued the interpretation of the impartial access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b).

2026-12-05 Deadline

Thirty-day period expires for DCMs to cease domestic geographic restrictions that violate the impartial-access requirements or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight why compliance is not feasible; the same period applies to addressing intermediary impediments or explaining why compliance is not feasible.

Suggested considerations

• DCMs should inventory all domestic geographic eligibility, onboarding, trading, product-access, and account-management restrictions and assess them against 17 CFR 38.151(b)'s requirements for impartial, transparent, and non-discriminatory access.
• DCMs should review whether state-based restrictions affect members, persons with trading privileges, independent software vendors, or access to particular products, including event contracts.
• DCMs should identify and review contractual, technical, and operational controls used by futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries to determine whether they impose geographic restrictions inconsistent with the DCM's impartial-access requirements.
• DCMs should document the legal and operational basis for removing each restriction or, where removal is not feasible, prepare a fact-specific explanation for the Division of Market Oversight before the 30-day period expires.
• Compliance teams at intermediaries should map state-based geofencing, customer-location verification, product blocking, and position-management restrictions affecting access to DCM markets and assess whether those controls are required by applicable law, regulation, or court order.
• Affected firms should assess conflicts between the CFTC's interpretation and any state requirements or judicial orders, obtain legal analysis, and avoid treating the interpretation as automatically vacating an injunction or other binding court order.
• DCMs should retain evidence of governance review, intermediary oversight, customer communications, access testing, and remediation decisions in anticipation of possible fact-specific CFTC inquiry or enforcement.

What changed

The CFTC has applied the existing impartial-access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b) expressly to domestic geographic restrictions, including restrictions based on a market participant's state or location. DCMs must cease geographic restrictions that violate the rule within 30 days of the November 5, 2026 publication, or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight stating why compliance is not feasible.

Key dates

2026-11-05

CFTC Division of Clearing and Risk issued the no-action letter and accompanying public release addressing trust companies used for daily settlements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify any existing or proposed trust-company settlement arrangements and determine whether each arrangement is being governed under the DCO’s settlement-bank policies and procedures.
• DCOs should consider documenting that each trust company satisfies the applicable 17 CFR 39.14 settlement-bank criteria, including capitalization, creditworthiness, liquidity access, operational reliability, and regulatory status.
• Firms should consider reviewing account structures, settlement agreements, payment workflows, and legal opinions to confirm that transfers are irrevocable and unconditional no later than the time the relevant DCO or clearing-member account is debited or credited.
• DCOs may wish to assess credit, liquidity, concentration, and intraday settlement exposures arising from the use of each trust company and confirm that monitoring, escalation, collateral, and contingency arrangements remain adequate.
• Operations and resilience teams may wish to test the trust company’s connectivity, payment-failure procedures, recovery arrangements, and coordination with the DCO’s business-continuity and disaster-recovery plans.
• Legal and compliance teams should consider recording the no-action letter’s conditions and limits in the DCO’s regulatory inventory, noting that the relief is staff relief rather than a binding amendment to Part 39 and may not extend to materially different structures or facts.
• Clearing members may wish to confirm that their agreements with the DCO and trust company allocate settlement, segregation, insolvency, operational, and account-control risks consistently with the DCO’s approved procedures.

What changed

The letter provides staff no-action relief for a DCO that uses a trust company to conduct daily settlement, notwithstanding the distinction between a trust company and a settlement bank under the CFTC framework. It does not create a generally applicable exemption or amend 17 CFR Part 39; instead, it allows the arrangement provided the trust company is managed and controlled as a settlement bank.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published an earlier statement warning about demands for repayment of disguised-remuneration scheme loans, the possible need for a Validation Order and undue pressure in debt collection.

2026-11-05

The FCA published the intervention and the restrictions agreed with Ethica Resolve Limited and West 28th Street Limited.

Suggested considerations

• Firms servicing or collecting historic disguised-remuneration loans should identify affected portfolios, pause demands and litigation activity falling within the FCA restrictions, and confirm the precise scope of any agreed requirements with the FCA.
• Ethica should complete and evidence the required consumer communications, including the explanation that payment is not currently enforceable, and maintain records of recipients, delivery attempts and unresolved cases.
• Compliance teams should review whether correspondence, telephone contact, default notices, letters of claim and court instructions could create undue pressure or inaccurately imply that immediate payment is legally required.
• Firms should establish a vulnerability-identification and support process covering consumers experiencing health, financial or comprehension difficulties, with appropriate escalation, reasonable adjustments and management information.
• Debt servicers should verify the creditor's ownership, the chain of assignment, the original lender's regulatory status and any applicable consumer-credit permissions or exemptions before pursuing repayment.
• Legal and compliance teams should assess whether any proposed enforcement requires an FCA Validation Order or other court permission, recognising that a Validation Order is not guaranteed and that the FCA has stated that the debt may remain unenforceable if required permission is not granted.
• Firms should ensure that no default judgment is sought in the affected claims and that consumers continue to receive accurate information that formal court documents should not be ignored.
• Senior management should review outsourcing, agency and oversight arrangements where an authorised firm acts for an unauthorised debt purchaser, including conduct risk, consumer-outcome monitoring and escalation to the FCA where harm may have occurred.

What changed

Ethica must write to affected consumers explaining that they do not currently have an enforceable obligation to pay and therefore do not need to make payment at this stage. Ethica must not make further demands for payment from affected consumers in the current proposed court claim while the relevant issues remain unresolved. Ethica and West 28 must not seek default judgments against consumers who have not responded to a legal claim. Ethica must identify affected vulnerable consumers and put additional protections in place.

Key dates

2026-11-04

MPC meeting ended and the committee voted 8–1 to increase Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points to 4%; one member voted for 4.25%.

2026-11-05

The November 2026 Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes were published and the Bank Rate increase was reported as effective.

2027-02-01

The MPC’s Market Participants Survey median expectation referenced in the minutes placed Bank Rate at 4.25% in February 2027; this is an expectation, not a scheduled regulatory change.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance, treasury and risk teams may wish to confirm that systems, product disclosures and contractual interest calculations use the revised 4% Bank Rate where applicable from the relevant effective date.
• Mortgage and consumer-credit providers should consider assessing customer communications, affordability monitoring and conduct-risk impacts for tracker, variable-rate and refinancing products affected by the increase.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to reassess interest-rate, credit, liquidity and concentration-risk assumptions, including scenarios involving inflation near 5% in 2027 Q2 and further Bank Rate increases.
• Investment firms and trading businesses should consider reviewing valuation, margin, collateral, hedging and client-risk controls for sterling rates, gilts, swaps and other rate-sensitive positions.
• Firms may wish to monitor the MPC’s identified indicators of second-round effects, including wage settlements, firms’ pricing behaviour, household and business expectations, energy-cost pass-through and economic slack.
• Governance committees may wish to document the effect of the rate decision and the Bank’s adverse and weaker-demand scenarios in applicable risk assessments, recovery planning, stress testing and customer-outcome monitoring.
• Treasury and product teams should consider verifying that forecasts and liquidity plans reflect the Bank’s warning that further tightening remains possible if elevated energy prices become persistent or feed into wages and prices.

What changed

This is a monetary-policy decision rather than a new binding compliance rule. Bank Rate increased from 3.75% to 4%, raising the reference cost relevant to floating-rate lending, tracker mortgages, treasury funding, derivatives valuation and certain contractual interest calculations. The MPC stated that monetary policy is not on a pre-set path and will be reassessed at each meeting, with particular attention to underlying pay, pricing behaviour, economic slack and the transmission of higher energy prices.

Key dates

2021-12-20

The AFM published its exploratory report on finfluencing, identifying unlicensed advice, risky recommendations, cooperation with unlicensed firms and customer-referral fees as key pitfalls.

2026-08-31

The Rotterdam District Court reduced the Van den Brink fine by €52,500 to €142,500, citing proportionality, delayed AFM action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR.

2026-11-05

The AFM published the enforcement update describing the original €195,000 fine and the court's final €142,500 outcome.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should consider inventorying all finfluencer, affiliate, introducer and referral arrangements, including website links, discount codes, lead forms and onboarding assistance.
• Firms should consider verifying the AFM authorisation status of every investment-service provider, platform or asset manager promoted by employees, affiliates or contracted influencers before publication or referral activity begins.
• Investment firms should consider testing whether any payment is calculated by reference to the number of referred customers, account openings, onboarding progress, deposits or invested assets, as these features create heightened Dutch inducement and conduct risk.
• Firms should consider separating permitted advertising services from customer-introduction or onboarding activities and documenting why each arrangement does not involve unauthorised investment advice, portfolio management or participation in unlicensed services.
• Marketing and compliance teams may wish to review influencer scripts, direct messages, Q&A responses and customer-support practices for advice, personalised recommendations or operational assistance that exceeds passive advertising.
• Firms should consider collecting and retaining contracts, commission calculations, communications, approval records and evidence of licence checks so that the commercial purpose and control framework for each promotion can be demonstrated.
• Governance committees may wish to treat unusually high or asset-based referral commissions, including percentages of customer deposits, as escalation indicators requiring enhanced legal and compliance review.
• Firms should consider reviewing legacy arrangements in light of the AFM's 2021 finfluencer findings and subsequent enforcement against referral-fee models, including arrangements involving execution-only services.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or general licensing amendment. The AFM treated Van den Brink's combined activities—promotion through social media and a website, investor introduction, assistance with registration, responses to investor questions and acting as a contact person—as participation in illegal asset management, not merely advertising. The AFM stated that Grinta Invest had no required licence and that Van den Brink received substantial referral remuneration, including 10% of investors' deposited capital; the remuneration was relevant to the original fine.

Key dates

2026-11-04

ASIC published the enforcement notice covering 22 large proprietary companies and confirmed total payments of $4,356,000.

2025-08-01

Approximate month in which ASIC commenced its data-focused surveillance of large proprietary companies and other entities for late or missing financial reports.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map every Australian entity in the corporate group against its financial reporting obligations, including changes in size, ownership, control, corporate structure and operations.
• Firms should consider maintaining a central obligations register recording each entity's financial year end, applicable reporting category, audit requirements, board approval milestones and ASIC lodgement deadline.
• Finance and governance functions may wish to schedule audit planning, management accounts, director approvals and electronic lodgement sufficiently early to address audit-related delays.
• Directors and company secretaries should consider reviewing whether any financial reports, directors' reports or auditors' reports are overdue and arranging prompt lodgement rather than waiting for ASIC contact.
• Groups may wish to document controls for identifying newly reportable entities, including entities that become large proprietary companies or become foreign-controlled.
• Compliance teams should consider retaining evidence of deadline monitoring, auditor engagement, escalation of reporting delays and remediation of overdue filings in case ASIC opens a surveillance review.
• Where ASIC has contacted an entity or an infringement notice has been paid, firms should consider confirming whether all outstanding reports have been lodged because ASIC states that its investigation may continue and payment does not resolve separate reporting obligations.

What changed

No new statutory reporting rule was introduced. ASIC has escalated enforcement of existing obligations under the Corporations Act 2001, including the requirement for large proprietary companies and other prescribed entities to prepare, audit and lodge required financial reports, directors' reports and auditors' reports within the applicable statutory period. For most entities required to lodge, the general deadline is within four months after financial year end; disclosing entities, registered schemes and registrable superannuation entities generally have three months.

Key dates

2026-01-19

The PRM sourcebook and related POATR regime rules and amendments referred to in PMB 67 came into force.

2026-11-04

FCA published Primary Market Bulletin 67, launched the consultation on Knowledge Base amendments through GC26/8, and published the new PMB and ESS information.

2026-12-09 Deadline

Deadline for comments on GC26/8 consultation proposals concerning consequential Knowledge Base amendments.

Suggested considerations

• Sponsors should consider mapping every current and planned AI use case to the relevant sponsor workstream, identifying activities where AI assistance is unsuitable or requires enhanced review, including complex negotiations, board-level strategic advice and definitive ethical or legal accountability.
• Sponsors should consider documenting named human responsibility for validating AI outputs, correcting hallucinations and omissions, independently challenging analysis, and approving final sponsor work products.
• Compliance and risk teams may wish to review AI policies and controls for approved-tool restrictions, consumer-tool blocking or limitation, confidential-information handling, third-party adviser use, supplier confidentiality, model changes, and accountability for both information entered and output received.
• Sponsors should consider whether prompts, outputs, transcripts, drafts and related review evidence constitute records, and whether retained files demonstrate and permit verification of the basis for material judgements in accordance with applicable sponsor record-keeping arrangements.
• Primary-market legal and compliance teams should review employee and former-employee offering exemptions against PRM 1.4.12(2)(c), particularly where employee incentive or share schemes rely on the prospectus exemption.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments on GC26/8 by 9 December 2026 and reviewing the final Knowledge Base amendments once published.
• ESS administrators should consider adopting the Update My Profile process, ensuring that profile changes are supported by a stated reason and that any impact on open cases is selected deliberately.
• Issuers and data users may wish to assess the new NSM interface and prepare for future FCA MIRA issuer profiles, API access and changes to the Official List, while continuing to maintain existing disclosure submission processes until further FCA instructions are issued.

What changed

The FCA has launched an enhanced NSM interface and intends to develop FCA MIRA, combining a modernised NSM, a modernised Official List, issuer profile pages, reference and short-position data, and an API for bulk access. The FCA has not introduced a new AI-specific rule in PMB 67, but its review provides clear supervisory expectations for sponsors: AI may support research, summarisation, drafting, due diligence, quality assurance and other work, but must not replace sponsor professional judgement, independent challenge, accountability or conclusions reached after due and careful enquiry.

Key dates

2018-08-03

iSignthis represented that less than 15% of quarterly revenue came from one-off or set-up fees; the Court found that the proportion exceeded 75% and that approximately AUD 3 million of one-off revenue and AUD 2.85 million of related one-off costs were not disclosed.

2020-05-12

iSignthis received Visa's letter communicating the finality of Visa's decision to terminate its relationship; the Court found that disclosure to the ASX was required on or shortly after this date.

2020-12-07

ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings against iSignthis and Nickolas John Karantzis.

2022-05-11

iSignthis changed its name to Southern Cross Payments Ltd.

2022-11-04

Southern Cross Payments Ltd was delisted from the ASX.

2024-06-21

The Federal Court found that iSignthis had contravened disclosure laws and that Karantzis had breached relevant director duties.

2025-08-08

The Federal Court ordered iSignthis to pay a AUD 10 million penalty and ordered Karantzis to pay AUD 1 million and be disqualified from managing corporations for six years.

2025-09-05

iSignthis and Karantzis lodged appeals against the liability and penalty decisions.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing continuous-disclosure procedures against Corporations Act 2001 section 674 and ASX Listing Rule 3.1, including escalation criteria for operational, commercial and revenue information.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether financial reporting distinguishes recurring revenue from one-off or set-up fees and discloses material associated costs consistently with market communications.
• Listed entities should consider documenting how they assess materiality, finality and reasonable grounds for delay when a major counterparty indicates that a contract or relationship may end.
• Boards and senior officers may wish to review controls ensuring that information provided to the ASX is accurate, complete and not misleading, including verification of statements made in analyst briefings and investor presentations.
• Firms should consider confirming that trading suspensions do not cause disclosure controls to stop operating and that market-sensitive developments continue to be assessed during a suspension.
• Companies may wish to retain contemporaneous records of disclosure decisions, legal advice, board or committee deliberations and communications with counterparties where disclosure timing is disputed.
• Compliance teams should consider whether director and officer accountability frameworks adequately address the risk of personal civil penalties and disqualification for failures to take reasonable steps to ensure ASX information is accurate.

What changed

The appeal did not introduce a new statutory obligation, but it confirms the substantial enforcement consequences of existing Australian continuous-disclosure and director-duty requirements. The Court upheld findings concerning iSignthis's failure to accurately disclose the extent of one-off revenue and related costs, and its failure from 12 May 2020 to disclose Visa's decision to terminate its relationship and the reasons communicated by Visa.

Key dates

2026-11-03

DP26/2 opened and was first published by the FCA jointly with the DWP and TPR.

2026-12-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the Guided Retirement policy consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider submitting responses to the DWP Guided Retirement Policy Team by 22 December 2026, including evidence on feasibility, consumer outcomes, product design, costs, data and operational dependencies.
• Contract-based providers should assess how potential Guided Retirement requirements could interact with their existing COBS 9B targeted-support processes, governance, suitability or appropriateness controls, customer communications and record keeping.
• Providers, trustees and administrators should map current retirement journeys and identify gaps in member data, administration systems, payment capabilities, transfer processes, decumulation products and management information.
• Scheme operators should consider which default retirement-income models could meet the emerging policy objectives, including approaches involving staged or flexible access and protection against longevity risk, while avoiding premature conclusions before the FCA rules and DWP regulations are consulted on.
• Governance teams should establish ownership for Guided Retirement readiness and monitor the FCA, DWP and TPR consultations expected to follow, including the FCA consultation on draft rules and guidance planned for the second half of 2027.
• Firms should assess interactions with other workplace-pension reforms, particularly value-for-money requirements, consumer-support arrangements, conflicts management and member communications, because independent commentary has identified a risk of overlapping or inconsistent standards.

What changed

The Discussion Paper sets out initial joint proposals for implementing Guided Retirement, under which workplace pension schemes would provide a clear, high-quality default route into retirement for eligible savers who do not make complex active choices. The framework is intended to apply across both FCA-regulated contract-based schemes and trust-based schemes, with the FCA required to introduce rules that achieve, so far as possible, the same outcomes as the duties imposed on trustees by the Pension Schemes Act 2026.

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA publishes PS26/22 and final rules for the ESG ratings regime; Part 1 of Annex D comes into force.

2027-02-01

FCA Pre-Application Support Service is expected to be available to prospective ESG ratings applicants.

2027-06-24 Deadline

FCA authorisation gateway opens. Providers with annual revenue of £500,000 or more should apply during the first application period, from 24 June to 29 July 2027.

2027-07-29 Deadline

End of the first staggered authorisation application period for providers with annual revenue of £500,000 or more.

2027-07-30

Second staggered authorisation application period opens for providers with annual revenue below £500,000.

2027-08-31 Deadline

End of the second staggered authorisation application period for providers with annual revenue below £500,000.

2028-06-29 Deadline

The ESG ratings regime takes effect. In-scope providers must be FCA-authorised and hold the relevant permission before carrying on the regulated activity, unless an exclusion applies; unauthorised activity may breach the FSMA general prohibition and constitute a criminal offence.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all ESG scores, assessments, opinions and rating products against article 63U, PERG 2.3 and the FCA perimeter guidance, including whether the firm both produces and makes the rating available and whether it is likely to influence a specified investment decision.
• Potential applicants should identify the legal entity requiring authorisation or variation of permission and assess whether an exemption applies, including exemptions connected with other regulated activities, investment research, fund marketing, benchmarks and overseas persons.
• Firms should perform a gap analysis against PS26/22 covering transparency disclosures, methodology governance, data validation, quality assurance, record retention, complaints handling, rated-entity engagement and advance notification of material methodology changes.
• Providers should consider documenting controls for AI and other automated processes, data limitations, model or methodology changes, reproducibility of rating outcomes and the competence, independence and integrity of rating personnel.
• Compliance teams may wish to review conflicts arising from charging models, consulting or advisory services, commercial relationships, remuneration and personal transactions, and determine how conflicts will be prevented, managed and disclosed.
• Firms should assess governance, senior-management accountability, systems and controls, outsourcing oversight, UK presence expectations and financial-resources and wind-down arrangements relevant to the authorisation application.
• Potential applicants should consider engaging with the FCA Pre-Application Support Service from February 2027 and preparing the application materials before the relevant staggered application window.
• Users of ESG ratings should consider reviewing supplier due diligence, data procurement, investment governance and sustainability disclosure processes so that ratings are interrogated rather than treated as definitive or objectively comparable ESG measures.

What changed

Providing an ESG rating becomes a regulated activity under article 63U of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order, subject to the statutory perimeter and exclusions. A provider is generally in scope where it produces and makes the rating available, carries on the activity by way of business, and the rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment; merely distributing another provider's rating is outside this activity.

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA publishes PS26/22 and final rules; the FEES amendment relating to the regime comes into force.

2027-02-01

FCA expects its Pre-Application Support Service for ESG rating authorisation applications to become available.

2027-06-24

FCA authorisation gateway opens for ESG rating providers.

2027-07-31 Deadline

Larger firms, defined by the FCA as firms expecting at least £500,000 of UK ESG-ratings revenue in the 12 months following application, should apply during the first month of the gateway, before the end of July 2027.

2027-08-31 Deadline

Other firms should apply during the second month of the gateway, by the end of August 2027.

2028-06-29 Deadline

The ESG ratings regime comes into force. In-scope providers must have FCA authorisation and the relevant permission unless an exclusion or exemption applies.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory every product, score, opinion, label, ranking, colour-coded category and platform output that assesses one or more environmental, social or governance factors, including products not marketed as ESG ratings.
• Compliance teams may wish to apply the PERG 19 decision framework to each product: whether the activity is carried on by way of business, whether the firm produces and makes the rating available, whether investment decisions are likely to be influenced, the territorial connection, and whether an exclusion or exemption applies.
• Firms should document the distinction between unranked ESG data and provider-produced ratings, including the methodology, default thresholds, categories and user-configurable outputs embedded in software or analytics platforms.
• Potential applicants should identify the legal entity requiring permission, assess whether the activity is standalone or embedded in another regulated service, and prepare a regulatory business plan, governance map, resources assessment and threshold-conditions evidence.
• Prospective applicants should use the FCA’s Pre-Application Support Service from February 2027 and consider submitting applications promptly after the 2027 gateway opens.
• Larger firms should plan to submit applications during the first month of the gateway, before the end of July 2027, where forecast UK ESG-ratings revenue is at least £500,000 in the 12 months following application. Other firms should plan to apply during the second month, by the end of August 2027.
• Firms should perform a gap analysis against PRIN, SYSC, SM&CR, GEN, DISP, ESG-sourcebook and financial-crime expectations, with particular attention to methodology governance, data quality, conflicts, complaints, records, outsourcing and senior-manager accountability.
• Providers should review commercial terms, marketing and distribution arrangements to determine whether products could reasonably be expected to influence specified investment decisions, including where outputs are supplied through third-party financial platforms.

What changed

Providing an ESG rating becomes a regulated activity under article 63U of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, as amended by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025. The activity generally requires a provider to produce and make available an opinion, score or combination based on an established methodology and defined ranking system, where the rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published its expectations for lenders making voluntary motor finance settlement offers; the page was updated on 2026-11-03.

2026-10-01

Barclays Partner Finance identified customers whose complaints had been acknowledged on or before this date as a cohort for some early settlement offers.

2027-02-16

The scheduled start of the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

2027-03-03

The scheduled end date of the hearing window for the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering early settlements should assess each offer against the maximum redress that would have been available under the FCA motor finance compensation scheme, rather than using a lower discretionary amount.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish governance and second-line review for the methodology, calculations, customer segmentation and approval of settlement communications.
• Firms should consider notifying the FCA before making offers and supplying the FCA factsheet with each customer communication.
• Offer letters should clearly state the amount, calculation basis, the full-and-final effect of acceptance, the inability to claim more later, the option to reject and remain within the scheme, and the consequences for the existing complaint.
• Firms should consider allowing at least one month for customers to respond and retaining evidence that customers had sufficient information and time to make an informed decision.
• Marketing, customer-service and complaints teams should avoid language suggesting FCA endorsement, approval or validation of an individual offer.
• Firms should consider controls to prevent accepted settlements from being subsequently processed as scheme claims or referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Motor finance lenders should continue preparing for the compensation scheme and progress complaints as far as possible during the partial suspension, even if scheme compensation is not currently calculated or paid.

What changed

Lenders may make voluntary settlement offers before the partially suspended FCA motor finance compensation scheme is implemented, but the FCA expects each offer to provide at least the compensation the customer would receive under the scheme, calculated by reference to the relevant agreement and the scheme methodology. Firms intending to make offers are expected to notify the FCA, provide the FCA factsheet to customers, and ensure communications are clear, fair and not misleading.

Key dates

2026-09-30

The FCA’s application window for the new UK cryptoasset regime opened.

2026-10-01

The application window opened for the FCA Regulatory Sandbox themed cohort on climate scenario models.

2026-11-02

The FCA published Wholesale banks supervision - Insights 3 (Autumn 2026).

2026-11-30 Deadline

The application window closes for the FCA Regulatory Sandbox climate scenario models cohort.

2027-02-28 Deadline

FCA-encouraged deadline for wholesale banks to submit a variation-of-permission application for new regulated cryptoasset activities to obtain the stated pre-regime application treatment.

2027-10-25

The new UK cryptoasset regime comes into force.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a control-by-control review of critical data ingestion, including completeness checks, reconciliation, coding-change testing, source-to-consumption lineage and evidence of design and operating effectiveness for financial-crime and surveillance controls.
• Compliance and technology teams may wish to test communications surveillance after system changes, including lexicon configuration, geographic and channel coverage, third-party-provider interfaces, ingestion completeness and retention or auditability of records for in-scope activities.
• Firms should consider reconciling the technology-asset inventory to procurement, disposal, redeployment, identity and endpoint-management records across all regions, assigning clear lifecycle accountability and confirming that assets cannot leave service without security and inventory updates, including encryption status.
• Algorithmic-trading firms should consider testing enhancements across the complete order lifecycle, including near-simultaneous and geographically distributed fills, order-management and fill-notification interactions, overfills, stop-loss scenarios, venue behaviour, pre-trade limits, kill or cancel mechanisms and post-implementation monitoring, with governance aligned to UK MiFID RTS 6.
• Firms should consider testing DLP controls against deliberate circumvention, including split messages, altered classifications, changed file formats, embedded images and misleading subjects, while reviewing staff training, monitoring, escalation and privacy safeguards.
• Operational-resilience owners may wish to refresh important-business-service impact tolerances using potential disruption to trading, settlement, clients, counterparties and time-critical market processes rather than relying solely on generic recovery-time or availability metrics.
• Firms should consider separating current resilience capability from planned remediation in self-assessments, linking incidents, near misses and test results to mapping and remediation decisions, and validating completed remediation through retesting.
• Settlement-related firms should consider the effect of T+1 on post-trade dependencies, reconciliation, funding, exception management, recovery capability, scenario testing and impact-tolerance calibration.

What changed

The FCA has not introduced new binding rules through this publication; it has consolidated supervisory findings and clarified areas against which wholesale banks may be assessed. Firms are expected to be able to evidence complete data lineage and ingestion controls, auditable recording and communications surveillance even where third parties are used, reliable asset inventories, end-to-end algorithmic-trading testing and controls consistent with UK MiFID RTS 6, and DLP controls capable of addressing adaptive evasion techniques.

Key dates

2026-10-07

PRA published CP13/26 proposing automatic indexation of in-scope regulatory thresholds every five years, with a proposed first update on 1 July 2031.

2026-10-14

PRA published PS19/26 setting out the final policy on high loan-to-income lending.

2026-10-22

PRA published CP14/26 consultation on phase 2 of SM&CR reform.

2026-10-26

Bank of England and FCA published the 2026 survey results on artificial intelligence and machine learning in UK financial services.

2026-10-28

PRA rules and supervisory statement on high-LTI lending commenced; the firm-specific 15% cap was removed and the revised monitoring and governance framework became effective.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Consultation deadline reported for the PRA and FCA phase 2 SM&CR consultations.

2027-02-07 Deadline

Consultation deadline for CP13/26 and the associated discussion of additional thresholds potentially suitable for indexation.

2031-07-01

Proposed date for the first automatic update of in-scope regulatory thresholds under CP13/26, subject to final policy and implementation.

Suggested considerations

• Mortgage lenders should assess their high-LTI lending strategy against risk appetite, capital and credit-risk tolerances now that the firm-specific 15% cap has been removed.
• Mortgage lenders should establish or validate rolling four-quarter calculations for individual high-LTI flows and retain evidence supporting any adjustments, limits or risk appetite decisions.
• Relevant firms should review governance, underwriting, affordability, concentration and stress-testing controls to demonstrate prudent management of high-LTI lending under the new PRA expectations.
• Compliance and regulatory-reporting teams should monitor the PRA’s quarterly aggregate high-LTI publications and assess whether lending plans remain consistent with the FPC’s aggregate 15% limit.
• PRA-regulated firms should map current Rulebook and supervisory-statement thresholds against the 128 proposed in-scope thresholds and identify systems, permissions, reporting and policy documents that would require future updates.
• Affected firms should consider submitting responses to CP13/26 and its associated discussion questions by 7 February 2027, particularly where indexation could alter regulatory categorisation, reporting, capital, liquidity, governance or investment-flexibility requirements.
• SM&CR compliance teams should assess CP14/26 against current senior-manager responsibilities, certification processes, fitness and propriety controls, governance maps, handover arrangements and recordkeeping, while treating the proposals as non-final.
• Firms should monitor the related FCA SM&CR consultation and coordinate any response because implementation may require changes across PRA and FCA regimes.

What changed

PS19/26 removes the firm-specific 15% limit on high-LTI mortgage lending, while retaining the Financial Policy Committee’s aggregate 15% limit as the benchmark for overall market lending. Firms’ individual high-LTI flows and any required adjustments will be assessed on a rolling four-quarter basis, whereas aggregate high-LTI lending will continue to be monitored quarterly. The final rules and supervisory statement also introduce governance and risk-management expectations, and the PRA intends to publish aggregate high-LTI flow data quarterly.

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

2026-07-23

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

2026-03-04

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

2026-10-29

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

2026-12-07 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.