Hedge Funds Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2025-01-01

Beginning of the general period identified by the SEC during which the charged entities allegedly filed Forms ADV containing material misrepresentations; the publication does not specify an exact start date.

2026-08-27

The SEC announced the charges, disclosed the requested remedies, stated that the 38 ERA filings had been removed from its website, and referenced its related investor alert.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to perform a documented, line-by-line validation of Form ADV Part 1 and applicable Form ADV Part 2 disclosures, including business addresses, telephone numbers, websites, ownership, control persons, regulatory status, assets, private funds, clients, and service providers.
• Firms should consider retaining contemporaneous evidence supporting material Form ADV representations, such as lease or office records, corporate and ownership documents, fund records, audited financial statements, auditor engagement evidence, and records supporting reported assets and advisory activities.
• ERA and registered adviser compliance programs may wish to establish independent verification of counterparties' SEC registration or ERA status through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system and should avoid treating an SEC filing, certificate, or website badge as conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Firms that market investment advice to individuals should consider reviewing whether their regulatory status, Form ADV disclosures, and marketing materials accurately describe whether they are registered, exempt reporting, or otherwise authorized to provide services to retail investors.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate repeated or highly similar ownership structures, numerical disclosures, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, auditor names, or filing patterns across related advisers as potential indicators of coordinated fraudulent filings.
• Firms should consider escalating unanswered SEC requests for records and preserving relevant books, records, communications, websites, and filing-support materials, because the SEC expressly relied on alleged failures to substantiate Form ADV information.
• Private fund sponsors and allocators may wish to verify that purported fund audits were performed by identifiable independent public accounting firms with appropriate federal or state registration or licensing, rather than relying solely on statements in Form ADV.
• Financial-crime and onboarding teams may wish to incorporate the SEC's PAUSE list, investor alerts, foreign-jurisdiction indicators, website authentication checks, and independent corporate-registration checks into risk-based due diligence for purported U.S. advisers.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement complaints rather than a new rule or generally applicable filing requirement. The SEC alleges violations of Section 204(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which governs adviser records and reports including Form ADV, and Section 207, which prohibits untrue statements or omissions in applications and reports filed under the Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions preventing the defendants from filing Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers, and civil penalties.

Key dates

2026-08-27

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

Key dates

2016-06-01

Approximate start of the Relevant Period during which Keptain’s liquid capital was window dressed and deficiencies arose.

2018-03-31

Approximate end of the Relevant Period identified by the SFC.

2026-08-24

SFC revoked Chan’s licence and RO approval and began his 10-year prohibition on re-entering the industry.

2036-08-23

Chan’s 10-year industry ban ends.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reconciling every FRR return to bank statements, cleared funds, and post-period dishonour or reversal information rather than relying solely on month-end account balances.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether cheques, related-party funding, temporary transfers, overdrafts, unsettled receipts, and other non-cash or conditional items meet the applicable FRR eligibility and valuation requirements before inclusion in liquid capital.
• ROs and managers-in-charge should consider documenting their review and challenge of each FRR return, including explanations for material month-end movements and evidence that reported funds were genuinely available and not temporary window dressing.
• Firms should consider implementing daily or intraday escalation triggers that identify actual or foreseeable breaches of the minimum liquid-capital requirement and the 120% notification threshold.
• Where a deficiency occurs or is reasonably identified, firms should consider assessing and documenting whether notification is required under SFO section 146(1) and FRR Rule 55(1), including the one-business-day outer limit under Rule 55(1).
• Compliance teams may wish to review historical FRR returns and supporting bank evidence for similar patterns, particularly where funds were received from connected companies or were reversed shortly after reporting dates.
• Licensed corporations should consider reminding ROs that signing regulatory returns can create personal fitness-and-properness consequences, including licence revocation and a lengthy industry ban, and should ensure that responsibility cannot be reduced to a nominal or administrative role.

What changed

This is a final enforcement action rather than a change to the underlying rules. The SFC applied Rules 4 and 6 of the Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) Rules, under which Keptain was required to maintain at least HK$3 million in liquid capital at all times. The SFC found that cheques deposited at or around month-end but dishonoured before the returns were submitted should not have been included in the liquid-capital calculations; excluding them would have produced deficiencies ranging from HK$731,000 to HK$3,473,000 over 20 months.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

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

2026-10-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each pool’s investor eligibility against the natural-person and non-natural-person requirements in proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), including the distinctions between qualified eligible persons and accredited investors.
• RIAs should review offering documents, subscription procedures, investor representations, and transfer controls to support the required reasonable belief at investment or conversion that all participants satisfy the applicable eligibility criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that each relevant pool’s interests qualify for a Securities Act exemption and that U.S. marketing practices comply with the proposed restriction, including the Rule 506(c) exception.
• Eligible advisers should map Form PF obligations and determine whether existing SEC filings would satisfy the proposed condition that Form PF be filed where required.
• Firms should prepare to file or update electronic exemption notices with the NFA and maintain the proposed Regulation 4.13 annual affirmation, recordkeeping, disclosure, and statutory-disqualification representations.
• Managers operating both registered and exempt pools should assess the proposed Regulation 4.13(e)(2) communications and redemption-right requirements and identify whether any existing participants would require notice before a pool is operated as exempt.
• Small-pool operators should model eligibility using the proposed $800,000 aggregate threshold while continuing to monitor the 15-participant-per-pool limit and unchanged contribution exclusions.
• Managers relying on Staff Letter 25-50 should preserve evidence of current compliance and evaluate transition implications because the CFTC preliminarily proposes to supersede that relief if the rule is finalized.

What changed

Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would exempt an SEC-registered investment adviser from CPO registration for qualifying pools if the pool interests are exempt from Securities Act registration and are not publicly marketed in the United States, except that the marketing restriction would not apply to pools offered under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D.

Key dates

2026-08-20

CFTC announced and published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking amendments to Regulation 37.3(a)(2).

Suggested considerations

• SEFs should assess which listed products and transaction categories are permitted transactions under Regulation 37.9(c)(1), distinguishing them from swaps subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement.
• SEFs should consider whether to submit comments within 30 days after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, including evidence on order-book usage, execution quality, liquidity, market transparency, and operational costs.
• SEFs should review their rulebooks, execution protocols, product listings, disclosures, surveillance coverage, and client documentation to determine what changes would be needed if the proposal is finalized.
• SEFs relying on the CFTC’s existing no-action relief should confirm the relief’s scope and conditions and maintain controls ensuring that required transactions continue to satisfy applicable execution requirements.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other market participants should identify whether counterparties or venues may discontinue order-book functionality for permitted transactions and evaluate impacts on liquidity access, best execution or execution-quality processes, recordkeeping, and internal trading procedures.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the actual publication date, comment deadline, final-rule date, and any changes to the proposed effective date; the August 20, 2026 press release does not itself establish the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposed rule would remove the Regulation 37.3(a)(2) requirement for an SEF to offer an order book for permitted transactions. A permitted transaction is defined in Regulation 37.9(c)(1) as a transaction that does not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement; such transactions are not required to be executed on an SEF or designated contract market and may use any execution method offered by the SEF.

Key dates

2026-08-20

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the Innovation Advisory Committee speech and announced the prospective roadmap for crypto assets, compute markets, and prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should treat the speech as a forward-looking supervisory and rulemaking signal, not as an effective legal change, and continue applying currently effective CEA, CFTC regulations, registration, listing, reporting, customer-protection, and market-surveillance requirements.
• Crypto platforms should assess whether their products could constitute futures, swaps, or retail commodity transactions offered on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis, and should document the current jurisdictional and registration analysis for each product and customer segment.
• Crypto exchanges and protocol developers may wish to monitor CFTC releases, Federal Register notices, and any proposed rules concerning crypto asset markets, onchain finance protocols, and possible DCM designation; they should be prepared to submit comments within the applicable future comment periods rather than relying on the speech as a safe harbor.
• Designated contract markets and prediction-market operators should review event-contract listing governance, product surveillance, manipulation controls, customer disclosures, incentive programs, and state-law litigation exposure in light of the CFTC's stated intention to defend exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Prediction-market firms should monitor developments concerning prohibited gaming-related contracts, public-interest standards, fully collateralized event-contract reporting, and enhanced consumer-protection requirements identified in independent industry coverage of the committee meeting.
• Firms developing compute-related contracts or financing products should map the underlying compute service, delivery and settlement terms, participants, and potential commodity or derivatives characterization so that they can respond meaningfully to the CFTC and Department of Commerce request for comment.
• Compliance teams may wish to update regulatory-change inventories and senior-management briefings to distinguish the Chairman's policy direction from binding Commission action, particularly because any future rules would require formal rulemaking, publication, and applicable transition periods.

What changed

The Chairman directed CFTC staff to explore rules establishing a CFTC framework for crypto asset markets using existing authorities. The proposed approach could allow current registrants and non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated as a type of designated contract market called a crypto asset market, with authority to offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis under purpose-specific rules; no rule text, eligibility criteria, effective date, or compliance threshold was issued in the speech.

Key dates

2026-08-19

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2022-12-23

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

2026-08-19

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-19

MAS published the announcement of the proposed tax exemption, Hedge Fund Investment Programme and Investment Management Track.

2027-01-01

The proposed tax exemption is expected to apply from Year of Assessment 2027; the precise income-period mechanics and legislative commencement remain to be confirmed.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory existing carried-interest, performance-fee, incentive-allocation and other profit-participation arrangements and identify whether returns are received directly or indirectly for fund-management services.
• Tax and legal teams may wish to map each relevant fund against Sections 13D, 13O, 13OA, 13U and 13V of the Income Tax Act 1947 and retain evidence of Singapore-based management and applicable economic-substance conditions.
• Firms should avoid treating the announcement as an immediately available exemption and should monitor Budget 2027 and subsequent legislation or administrative guidance for the effective scope, rate, thresholds, attribution rules and documentation requirements.
• Compliance teams may wish to review fund, management-company, partnership and individual remuneration agreements so that the commercial basis for any profit-related return is clearly documented and distinguishable from ordinary salary or bonus remuneration.
• Asset managers considering Singapore expansion should assess whether participation in the Hedge Fund Investment Programme or the proposed Investment Management Track could support their business and talent strategy, while awaiting eligibility and application details.
• Immigration and HR teams may wish to identify senior investment professionals whose compensation is materially linked to investment performance and assess the potential implications once revised ONE Pass criteria are published.
• Firms should continue applying existing tax, licensing, employment, payroll, conduct, books-and-records and anti-avoidance requirements; this announcement does not displace those obligations.

What changed

MAS and the Ministry of Finance plan to introduce a tax exemption from Year of Assessment 2027 for qualifying profit-related returns arising from fund-management services. The exemption is intended to cover a contractual share of profits of funds qualifying under Sections 13D, 13O, 13OA, 13U or 13V of the Income Tax Act 1947, where the funds are managed by Singapore-based fund managers and the returns are received directly or indirectly by corporate entities, partnerships or individuals for providing fund-management services.

Key dates

2025-09-10

Tricolor and affiliates filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and moved toward liquidation.

2025-12-17

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Tricolor executives in connection with the alleged fraud.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the civil enforcement action against Daniel Chu, Jerome Kollar, and Ameryn Seibold in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a targeted review of whether the same receivable, loan, vehicle, inventory item, or other asset can be pledged across multiple warehouse facilities, securitizations, lenders, or managed accounts, including through affiliates and special-purpose vehicles.
• Compliance teams may wish to test collateral eligibility and borrowing-base reporting back to source-level records, payment histories, lien and ownership data, servicing systems, and independent third-party evidence rather than relying solely on management certifications.
• Securitization sponsors, underwriters, and investors should consider reviewing controls for detecting loans that are delinquent, charged off, non-paying, fictitious, materially impaired, or otherwise ineligible but reported as current or eligible.
• Firms should consider reconciling loan-level collateral tapes across all funding channels and establishing exception escalation, independent sign-off, segregation of duties, and documented remediation for duplicate identifiers or inconsistent pledging data.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to assess whether offering documents, investor presentations, lender certificates, and management meetings accurately describe liquidity constraints, funding needs, collateral encumbrances, and portfolio performance.
• Boards and senior-management committees should consider reviewing governance over collateral operations, securitization disclosures, liquidity reporting, related-party or affiliate financing, and controls over executive certifications.
• Investment managers and lenders may wish to incorporate independent collateral verification, borrowing-base audit rights, data-access rights, concentration and duplication analytics, and covenant triggers into new and renewed transactions.
• Firms with relevant exposure should consider preserving records, communications, collateral tapes, system audit trails, certifications, underwriting files, and exception reports in light of parallel SEC and criminal proceedings.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new rule, threshold, filing requirement, or compliance deadline. It announces an enforcement complaint under the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged control-person liability against Chu and aiding-and-abetting liability against all three defendants. The SEC seeks injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and officer-and-director bars against Chu and Kollar.

Key dates

2026-08-18

ESMA launched the consultation on draft EMIR RTS and ITS for annual reporting of clearing activity at recognised third-country CCPs.

2026-10-12 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to provide feedback on the reporting framework, templates and format.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to submit comments on the proposed framework, templates and reporting format by 2026-10-12.
• Firms should consider identifying every recognised third-country CCP used by their EU entities and distinguishing direct clearing-member activity from client clearing activity.
• Reporting owners may wish to map the proposed Article 7d data points to existing EMIR Article 9 transaction reporting, margin, collateral, default-fund and treasury or payments data to determine what can be reused and what new data controls are needed.
• Groups should consider determining whether reporting will be performed by each EU entity or by the EU parent undertaking on a consolidated basis.
• Firms may wish to assess data availability by asset class and Union currency, calculation methodologies for annual average cleared values, and controls for margins, default-fund contributions and largest payment obligations.
• Technology and regulatory-reporting teams should consider designing provisional data lineage, reconciliation and governance processes, while treating implementation dates and final fields as subject to the final RTS and ITS.
• Firms should monitor ESMA’s Final Report and the subsequent adoption, endorsement and publication of the technical standards before treating the proposed reporting model as a final operative obligation.

What changed

This is a consultation rather than a final binding rule. ESMA proposes the reporting framework, templates and format required under EMIR 3 Article 7d for clearing members and clients that clear transactions through recognised third-country CCPs. Firms established in the EU and not part of an EU-consolidated-supervision group would report to their competent authority; where the firm belongs to such a group, the EU parent undertaking would report on a consolidated basis.

Key dates

2026-08-18

CFTC announced publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning amendments to Part 4 CPO and CTA registration requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review the full Federal Register proposal, including the precise sophisticated-investor criteria, pool-level conditions, adviser eligibility requirements, proposed small-pool capital threshold, effective date, and transition provisions.
• Firms should consider mapping each existing and prospective pool against the proposed CPO exemption conditions and each advisory mandate against the proposed CTA exemption conditions, without treating the proposal as currently available relief.
• SEC-registered advisers may wish to compare the proposed exemption with their current CFTC registration status, CFTC Regulation 4.13 or 4.14 filings, Rule 4.7 reliance, and any applicable CFTC staff no-action relief.
• Small-pool operators should consider recalculating eligibility using the proposed inflation-adjusted capital-contribution threshold once the precise amount is published and assessing whether existing offering, subscription, and compliance controls would continue to demonstrate compliance.
• Affected firms may wish to assess whether to submit comments within 45 days after Federal Register publication, particularly on investor definitions, treatment of derivatives and swaps, aggregation rules, recordkeeping, reporting, and coordination with SEC adviser requirements.
• Firms relying on existing exemptions or no-action letters should continue meeting their current conditions and filing obligations unless and until a final rule or separate relief changes them.
• Legal and regulatory inventories may be updated to cross-reference CFTC Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, and 4.14, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What changed

The CFTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to Part 4. The proposal would add a CPO registration exemption for certain investment advisers registered with the SEC in connection with commodity pools whose participants are limited to specified sophisticated investors and that satisfy additional conditions set out in the proposal. It would add a related CTA registration exemption. It would also increase the capital-contribution threshold applicable to the existing small commodity pool exemption under CFTC Regulation 4.13 to account for inflation.

Key dates

2026-08-14

The SEC announced the enforcement action and filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

2020-12-01

Approximate beginning of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

2025-06-30

Approximate end of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reconciling every investor-facing statement about upfront fees, markups, commissions, carried interest, advisory fees, transaction spreads, and total acquisition cost against actual fund and affiliate-level economics.
• Compliance teams may wish to map all principal transactions and related-party transfers between advisers, sponsors, general partners, feeder funds, and portfolio-acquisition vehicles, with documented conflict reviews and valuation support.
• Firms should consider testing whether each person soliciting private-fund interests is properly registered or otherwise operating within an applicable broker-dealer exemption, and whether compensation arrangements create broker-dealer registration or supervision concerns.
• Compliance teams may wish to review cold-calling scripts, call recordings, lead-generation practices, sales-agent training, and escalation controls for high-pressure claims, guaranteed or implied returns, scarcity statements, and misleading descriptions of pre-IPO access.
• Firms should consider verifying offering exemptions, investor eligibility, registration status, subscription documentation, and disclosure delivery for each private fund and distribution channel.
• Compliance teams may wish to perform targeted surveillance of retail and retiree sales, including cancellation or cooling-off requests, unusual concentration, complaints about undisclosed fees, and differences between quoted and realized investor charges.
• Firms should consider preserving communications, transaction records, fee calculations, investor files, sales-agent compensation data, and valuation materials in anticipation of regulatory inquiries or investor claims.

What changed

This is a civil enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable safe harbor. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud, securities-registration, and broker-dealer-registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, together with control-person liability and aiding-and-abetting violations by Spaventa.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review application of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (Integrity) and related training for senior managers and certified staff, using this case as a concrete example of prohibited behaviours such as falsification of documents and misleading regulators during transaction processes.
• Firms should consider revisiting governance and controls around change-in-control, acquisition and due diligence processes, ensuring that any representations to counterparties, the FCA or the PRA about ownership of assets, funding sources or balance sheet strength are independently verified and properly documented.
• Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) frameworks may need to be assessed to confirm that integrity risks are captured within fit-and-proper assessments under FIT, including checks on honesty in communications with regulators and counterparties and escalation processes where concerns arise.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to review internal investigation procedures, including how interviews are conducted and recorded, to ensure that employees understand the expectation of candour and the potential regulatory consequences of providing false or misleading statements during internal investigations.
• Boards and risk committees at FCA-authorised firms should consider whether their culture and conduct risk programmes sufficiently stress the expectation of honesty in all regulatory engagement, and whether additional monitoring or attestations from senior executives involved in M&A or capital-raising transactions are warranted.
• HR and compliance teams may wish to update disciplinary and regulatory notification policies to reflect that dishonesty in external deal negotiations or in internal investigations can trigger regulatory reporting obligations and potential fitness and propriety concerns.
• Firms involved in potential acquisitions of regulated entities should consider implementing pre-clearance and compliance review steps for all documentation and representations provided to target firms, regulators, and advisers, focusing on verification of asset ownership and financial claims.
• Compliance monitoring plans may be enhanced to include thematic reviews of communications with regulators and key counterparties in high-risk transactions, assessing whether there is adequate oversight and evidence of accuracy and integrity.

What changed

This publication does not introduce new rules but illustrates the FCA’s application of existing powers under section 66 FSMA 2000 (financial penalties for misconduct) and section 56 FSMA 2000 (prohibition orders) to serious integrity breaches by senior managers. It reinforces the practical interpretation of Individual Conduct Rule 1 (Integrity) in the Conduct Rules sourcebook (COCON), showing that dishonest statements and falsified documents directed at counterparties and regulators in the context of acquisitions are treated as egregious misconduct.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to verify that all marketed activities fall within the firm’s FSCA authorisation scope.
• Firms should consider checking that public-facing names, trading names, and FSP numbers match the FSCA register exactly.
• Market-conduct teams may wish to review websites, brochures, and social-media posts for any implication of authorisation where none exists.
• Firms should consider confirming that representatives and key individuals involved in client-facing activity are properly appointed and not subject to debarment or other restrictions.
• Compliance functions may wish to reassess oversight of affiliates, introducers, and other third-party distribution channels that could create unauthorised solicitation risk.
• Firms offering investments to South African clients may wish to map the product and jurisdictional footprint to ensure online or cross-border offers are within authorisation boundaries.

What changed

The publication reflects a regulatory enforcement outcome, not a new rule or consultation. The core conduct issue is that Acqumen Fund Limited was said to have offered investments to the public while not being authorised by the FSCA to provide financial products or intermediary services in South Africa.

Key dates

2026-12-31 Deadline

AST critical recommendations expected to be implemented, including same-day trade allocation/confirmation and adoption of the FMSB SSI standard

2027-10-11 Deadline

UK T+1 securities settlement cycle begins; transferables securities traded on a UK venue and settled on a UK CSD are expected to settle on T+1 basis

Suggested considerations

• Review whether the firm has completed a T+1 project plan, secured budget and governance, and mapped all required system and process changes.
• Check that trade allocation and confirmation processes can operate by end of trade date, or identify remediation needed to reach that standard.
• Confirm adoption of the FMSB standard for sharing standard settlement instructions and align client outreach to ensure clients use the same standard where relevant.
• Assess whether current settlement performance can be measured clearly, including failure rates and root causes, and whether management information is sufficient to track progress.
• Validate dependencies on custodians, counterparties, clients and third-party providers, and obtain their implementation timelines and testing plans.
• Prepare testing strategy and evidence for testing readiness, including alignment with the UK/EU joint testing plan.
• Consider whether the firm’s fund settlement cycle should move to T+2 before 11 October 2027 to reduce cycle mismatch risk.
• Increase automation where manual processes remain material, particularly in matching, confirmation and settlement instruction workflows.

What changed

This is not a new rule notice, but it is a supervisory signal about expectations for the 11 October 2027 T+1 transition. The FCA expects firms to have completed T+1 project planning, secured budget and governance, and be well into implementation, with system and process changes underway and testing plans finalised by the time the market moves closer to 2027. The FCA highlighted specific implementation priorities drawn from the Accelerated Settlement Taskforce framework, including allocating and confirming trades by the end of trade date, adopting the Financial Markets Standards Board...

Key dates

2026-03-01

EBA central validation function for pro forma initial margin models under EMIR became operational

2026-08-05

Publication date of the EBA consultation on the reporting framework for validation and monitoring of ISDA SIMM

2026-11-02 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on ISDA SIMM reporting

2026-12-31

Indicative target for EBA adoption of a Decision establishing the collection of relevant information for ISDA SIMM validation reporting by end of 2026

2027-03-31

Expected release of the final EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2, incorporating the new reporting requirements

2027-12-31

Expected first reporting reference date for ISDA SIMM-related information under the new framework

2028-03-31

Expected first quarter of 2028 window for collection of initial ISDA SIMM validation and monitoring data based on the December 2027 reference date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation paper, IMMV reporting instructions and templates to understand the proposed data fields, frequency and proportional thresholds for ISDA SIMM-related reporting under EMIR.
• Firms using or planning to use ISDA SIMM for non-centrally cleared OTC derivative initial margin calculations should consider whether they will fall under the more intensive or lighter reporting category based on the significance of their OTC trading activity and assess system readiness for the expected December 2027 reference date reporting in Q1 2028.
• Risk and collateral management functions may wish to map the proposed reporting requirements to existing SIMM backtesting, model performance, risk factor sensitivity and margin monitoring processes to identify gaps and necessary enhancements.
• Regulatory reporting and IT teams should consider planning for integration of the new IMMV reporting templates into their infrastructure, taking into account the incorporation of these requirements into the EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2 and the planned final technical release in March 2027.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to assess the implications of Article 11(12a) EMIR and EMIR 3 for their use of pro forma initial margin models, including governance around EBA’s central validation function and associated fee obligations, and prepare internal feedback on the consultation by the 2 November 2026 deadline.
• Firms intending to rely on ISDA SIMM should consider engaging with the consultation process to comment on the proportionality of the proposed reporting frequency and content, especially where OTC trading activity is limited but compliance costs could be significant.
• Supervisory liaison teams at affected groups may wish to coordinate with competent authorities to understand how the EBA’s data collection will be used in authorisation and ongoing supervision of ISDA SIMM-based initial margin models.

What changed

The consultation sets out a proposed standardised reporting framework for counterparties seeking validation to use ISDA SIMM as a pro forma initial margin model under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3). From 1 March 2026, the EBA acts as the central validator of the elements and general aspects of pro forma initial margin models pursuant to Article 11(12a) EMIR, and this proposal defines the information that must be submitted on a regular basis to enable validation and ongoing performance monitoring.

Key dates

22 June 2026

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

26 July 2026 Deadline

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

26 August 2026 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2011-07-22

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

2026-07-21

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-17

Federal Register publication date for the final rule

2026-08-17 Deadline

Final rule effective date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether any counterparties qualify as eligible seeded funds under the revised margin-affiliate definition and document the three-year trading-inception window.
• Firms may wish to refresh margin threshold calculations to reflect the exclusion of qualifying seeded funds from margin-affiliate aggregation.
• Operational teams may wish to update collateral eligibility schedules so that money market and similar fund securities are assessed under the expanded eligible-collateral framework.
• Risk and valuation teams may wish to confirm haircut logic under Commission Regulation 23.156(a)(3) for money market and similar funds.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to map the final rule against existing IM procedures, counterparty onboarding language, and margin agreements to determine whether amendments are needed before the effective date.
• Firms may wish to coordinate with fund sponsors and asset managers to verify the fund's start-up capital structure, independence, support limitations, and commencement of trading for any seeded-fund analysis.

What changed

['The Commission revised the definition of "margin affiliate" so that certain collective investment vehicles that receive start-up capital from a sponsor entity, referred to as "seeded funds," are treated as having no margin affiliates or as not constituting margin affiliates of another entity for purposes of the initial margin threshold calculation.', "For eligible seeded funds, swap dealers and major swap participants subject to the CFTC uncleared swaps margin rules are relieved from the requirement to post and collect initial margin for up to three years from the fund's trading inception...

Key dates

23 June 2026

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

TBD (2026–2027)

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

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

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

Suggested considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

What changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Key dates

22 September 2025

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

22 December 2025

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

Q2 2028

- Target implementation of HKIDR‑DM, concurrent with HKEX’s launch of the Orion Derivatives Platform, subject to completion of system testing and market rehearsals

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

19 June 2026

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

19 June 2026 Deadline

- **Start of mandatory use of the new forms** for all **new merger authorisation applications** filed with the CSSF; applications submitted from this date must use the new templates and be sent to [email protected]

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

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

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

TBD (proposal publication date in Federal Register)

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

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

– End of the initial public comment period on the proposal to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e)

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

11 June 2026

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

TBD (30 days after Federal Register publication)

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

TBD (after comment review)

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

November 2025 Deadline

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

27 May 2026

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

11 June 2026

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

26 June 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-11

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

2026-08-10 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-11

SEC issued the proposed amendments to rescind Regulation NMS Rule 611 and Rule 610(e)

2026-08-17 Deadline

Public comment period closes according to contemporaneous SEC practitioner coverage of the proposal

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether routing, best-execution, and market access controls rely on the continued operation of Rule 611 protected quotation logic.
• Firms may wish to assess whether any surveillance, OMS/EMS configuration, or venue selection logic should be updated if trade-through and locked/crossed market protections are rescinded.
• Market participants may wish to monitor the SEC comment process and any conforming amendments that could affect execution quality metrics, routing obligations, and exchange rulebooks.

What changed

The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, which currently prohibits trade-throughs in national market system stocks. It also proposes to rescind Rule 610(e), which restricts locking and crossing quotations in national market system stocks. The proposal would additionally remove related defined terms in Rule 600 and make conforming changes to related provisions.

Key dates

06 December 2023

– FCA publishes CP23/28 “Updating the regime for Money Market Funds,” consulting on higher liquidity minima (15% DLA and 50% WLA), delinking, enhanced KYC, and broader resilience measures

14 May 2026

– HM Treasury and the FCA publish the joint policy statement “Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations,” confirming the Government’s intention to replace the UK MMFR with a new framework and that most MMF requirements will be set in FCA rules and guidance, including higher liquidity expectations

15 May 2026

– FCA issues its statement “FCA update on reforms to the UK Money Market Fund Regulation,” setting out updated proposals, including retention of current minimum WLA in rules, the new “adequate resilience” liquidity rule, and supervisory expectations of 40% WLA for stable NAV and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, and indicating that CP23/28 measures such as delinking and enhanced KYC will largely be taken forward

Q4 2026

– The UK’s new MMF regime is expected to be in place, subject to Parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, after which the detailed FCA rules and guidance (including the new resilience rule and WLA expectations) will apply

TBD (as soon as Parliamentary time allows)

– HM Treasury will lay the statutory instrument replacing the UK MMFR with the new legislative framework under which FCA rules and guidance for MMFs will be made

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis comparing current MMF liquidity management frameworks (DLA, WLA, and stress‑testing assumptions) against the forthcoming FCA “adequate resilience” rule and the 40% (stable NAV) / 20% (variable NAV) WLA supervisory expectations.
• Update MMF liquidity policies, board‑approved risk appetites, and internal limits to reflect the new WLA expectations, including documentation of when and how funds may temporarily operate below 40%/20% WLA and the governance required to approve such deviations.
• Implement enhancements to liquidity monitoring and MI reporting so that portfolio managers, risk, and compliance have near‑real‑time visibility of DLA and WLA levels, breaches of internal and supervisory thresholds, and redemption‑driven use of liquidity buffers.
• Review and update fund prospectuses, KIIDs/KIDs, and investor disclosures to ensure that descriptions of MMF liquidity management, the availability of liquidity management tools, and the operation of stable NAV structures are accurate under the new FCA regime.
• Revise and strengthen investor KYC procedures for MMFs to capture concentration risks and potential correlated outflows, including segmentation of investor types, monitoring of large holders, and scenario analysis around key client redemption behaviour.

What changed

• - The FCA will introduce a new overarching rule requiring that all UK‑domiciled MMFs must hold sufficient liquidity for “adequate resilience”, explicitly linking fund liquidity to financial stability...
• The FCA will retain the current minimum WLA requirements from the existing UK Money Market Fund Regulation (UK MMFR) in its rules, instead of the previously consulted increases to 50% WLA for all...
• The FCA will issue guidance setting out strong supervisory expectations that stable NAV MMFs should hold 40% WLA and variable NAV MMFs should hold 20% WLA to meet the new resilience requirement,...
• The FCA makes clear that falling below the 40%/20% WLA supervisory expectations should only occur to meet redemption requests or due to factors beyond the manager’s control, and should be rare, with...
• The FCA will retain existing minimum daily liquid asset (DLA) requirements from UK MMFR in rules and does not plan to issue new guidance on DLA levels, but expects DLA and WLA together to be...

Key dates

11 May 2026

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

15 May 2026

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

8 June 2026

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

3 August 2026 Deadline

– Deadline for stakeholders to submit electronic responses on the consultation to the CSSF at [email protected]

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (final guidance – est. late 2026)

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

08 June 2026

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

TBD (consultation deadline – likely mid‑2026) Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

17 April 2026

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

05 June 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026)

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

29 January 2026

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

27 February 2026 Deadline

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

01 March 2027

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

End 2023

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

Throughout 2024 and 2025

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

2026 Deadline

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

04 June 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

1998

– CFTC adopts Appendix A to Part 10, establishing the policy of not accepting settlements where the respondent or defendant continues to deny the allegations

21 May 2026

– Federal Register publication date referenced in the CFTC’s final rule rescinding Appendix A to Part 10 (Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions, 91 FR 29892)

03 June 2026

– CFTC issues Press Release 9247‑26 publicly announcing that it has rescinded the policy and will not enforce existing no‑deny provisions

[Effective date of Federal Register publication – 21 May 2026]

– The rescission of Appendix A to Part 10 becomes effective as a final rule upon publication in the Federal Register; from this date, the CFTC will not apply the no‑deny policy in new settlements and will not enforce existing no‑deny clauses

Suggested considerations

• Review all existing CFTC settlement orders, consent orders, and related agreements to identify any no‑deny or neither‑admit‑nor‑deny clauses and update internal records to reflect that the CFTC has stated it will not enforce those provisions.
• Update internal enforcement and litigation playbooks to incorporate the new settlement flexibility, including explicit guidance that public denials post‑settlement may be possible but should be subject to legal and reputational risk review.
• Revise board- and senior‑management reporting on CFTC enforcement risks and settlement strategy to reflect the rescission of the no‑deny policy and the availability of settlements without waiving the ability to contest allegations in public communications.
• Implement or update communications and investor‑relations protocols governing post‑settlement statements, ensuring any public denials or clarifications are coordinated with legal, compliance, and, where relevant, parallel regulators or criminal authorities.
• For ongoing CFTC investigations or settlement negotiations, instruct external and internal counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek terms that preserve the firm’s ability to deny or contest aspects of the CFTC’s allegations after settlement.

What changed

• - The CFTC has rescinded the policy in Appendix A to Part 10 that prevented the Commission from accepting settlement offers where a respondent or defendant continued to deny the allegations in a...
• The CFTC will now accept settlements even where the settling party publicly denies or continues to deny the CFTC’s allegations, provided other settlement terms are satisfied.
• The CFTC has stated that it will not enforce existing no-deny (neither‑admit‑nor‑deny) provisions in settlements that have already been entered.
• If a settling party breaches an existing no-deny provision, the CFTC will not allege breach of contract, seek to reopen the matter, ask a district court to vacate the settlement, or reopen an...
• The rescission does not alter the CFTC’s discretion to: - settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability; or - negotiate and require admissions of facts or liability in...

Key dates

18 July 2023

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

31 December 2023 Deadline

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

Early 2026

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

04 June 2026

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

TBD (2026–2027)

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

21 July 2018

- Article 36(2) transparency requirements apply to MMFs authorised under MMFR as of this date, excluding MMFs benefiting from the transitional provision in article 44(1)

28 August 2018

- CSSF first published the MMFR FAQ, establishing the supervisory clarification framework for MMF questions

18 March 2024

- The CSSF MMF page shows Version 4 of the FAQ and references updated related MMF materials, including ESMA stress test scenario guidance

05 June 2025

- The CSSF webpage shows Version 4 as updated on this date, before the current Version 5 publication

Version 5 / current publication date not stated in the provided extract

- The updated FAQ is now the current CSSF guidance version on the public webpage

Suggested considerations

• Review the MMF prospectus and website disclosure architecture to ensure that maturity breakdown and credit profile information are presented in a manner consistent with the CSSF’s current FAQ interpretation.
• Confirm that weekly article 36(2) disclosures are scheduled on a controlled and documented day of the week, with escalation procedures for missed or late publication.
• Verify that internal credit quality assessment methodology, evidence, and sign-off are documented and available for disclosure or supervisory review.
• Reassess whether each MMF in scope is subject to article 36(2) based on its authorisation status and whether any transitional article 44(1) treatment applies.
• Align reporting and disclosure controls with the broader CSSF MMF framework, including recurring financial reporting expectations for CSSF-supervised MMF managers.

What changed

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

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

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

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...