Hedge Funds Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2026-11-06

The final rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 69955.

2027-02-04

Amendments to Investment Company Act rule 0-10 and Advisers Act rule 0-7 become effective.

2027-02-04 Deadline

The amendments to Advisers Act rule 203-3(b) and Form ADV become effective and compliance is required.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the adviser or any relevant control group will qualify as a small entity under the revised less-than-$1 billion RAUM test once the amendments become effective.
• Advisers may wish to review Form ADV Item 12 procedures, reporting logic, and filing controls so that the revised definition is applied from the February 4, 2027 compliance date.
• Advisers and fund groups may wish to map control relationships and family-of-investment-companies aggregation methodology against the amended thresholds rather than treating each legal entity independently.
• Firms may wish to confirm that internal policies do not incorrectly treat the revised RFA thresholds as changes to SEC registration, exemption, fiduciary, reporting, custody, or other substantive obligations.
• Advisers relying on or considering a continuing hardship exemption may wish to review the conforming amendments to Advisers Act rule 203-3(b) and update related filing documentation.
• Regulatory-change inventories and future rulemaking impact assessments may benefit from recording the inflation-adjustment mechanism and monitoring subsequent Commission adjustment orders.

What changed

Effective February 4, 2027, rule 0-10 will increase the threshold for a registered investment company or business development company to qualify as a small entity from $50 million to $10 billion of net assets. Asset aggregation will use the Form N-CEN concept of a family of investment companies rather than the former group of related investment companies terminology.

Key dates

2026-11-05

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

2026-12-05 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-04

The SEC adopted the amendments to Rules 0-10, 0-7, 203-3 and related Form ADV provisions.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to reassess the firm's status under Advisers Act Rule 0-7 and Investment Company Act Rule 0-10 using current Form ADV regulatory assets under management, fund-family relationships, net assets, and control relationships.
• Advisers and fund groups should distinguish the revised Regulatory Flexibility Act small-entity classification from SEC registration thresholds, eligibility for regulatory exemptions, and other substantive compliance obligations; the amendments do not alter those requirements.
• Fund administrators and regulatory reporting teams should review family-of-investment-companies aggregation data against Form N-CEN Item B.5 and prepare to apply the revised aggregation methodology when the amendments become effective.
• Advisers that rely on or may need a continuing hardship exemption from electronic filing should review the related Rule 203-3 and Form ADV amendments and confirm procedures, systems, and filing calendars before the compliance date.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the Federal Register for the publication date and calculate the 90-day effective and compliance date, since the SEC release does not yet provide a calendar date for that event.
• Regulatory policy teams should consider whether the broader small-entity population changes how the SEC's future rulemakings and Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses may affect the firm's cost and burden profile, without assuming that the classification creates immediate operational relief.

What changed

Rule 0-10 increases the net-asset threshold for an investment company, including a business development company, to $10 billion from $50 million and replaces the existing related-fund aggregation approach with a reference to a family of investment companies as used in Form N-CEN Item B.5. Rule 0-7 increases the investment-adviser small-entity threshold to less than $1 billion of regulatory assets under management from $25 million, eliminates the separate investment-adviser total-assets threshold, and makes conforming changes to the control-relationship tests.

Key dates

2025-11-05

FCA consultation CP25/30 opened on streamlining the UK EMIR intragroup regime.

2026-01-16

FCA consultation closed.

2026-10-21

HM Treasury made the Over-the-Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/1117).

2026-11-02

FCA published PS26/21, final BTS and related EMIR Q&A changes.

2026-12-05 Deadline

FCA-recommended date by which firms seeking new exemptions under the current regime should submit complete notifications to support processing before transition.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Temporary Intragroup Exemption Regime expires.

2027-01-01 Deadline

The permanent streamlined intragroup regime takes effect; new notifications must use the Connect process and relevant overseas exemptions operate subject to the 30-calendar-day FCA non-objection period.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory all existing UK EMIR intragroup clearing and margin exemptions, identify whether each exemption remains effective immediately before 2027-01-01, and retain evidence that the Article 3 group, consolidation and centralised risk-control conditions remain satisfied.
• Firms currently relying on TIGER should assess the transitional conditions and document the basis on which each exemption will continue after 2026-12-31; firms should not assume that grandfathering expands the scope of an existing exemption.
• Counterparties seeking a new exemption before 2027-01-01 should consider submitting a complete notification under the current process before 2026-12-05 so that the FCA can process it before the temporary regime expires.
• Firms expecting to submit a notification between 2026-12-05 and 2026-12-31 should contact the FCA promptly regarding transition arrangements, particularly where the notification may not be processed before year-end.
• From 2027-01-01, firms seeking exemptions for UK-to-overseas or overseas-to-overseas intragroup transactions should use the new Connect notification process and allow for the FCA’s 30-calendar-day objection period, calculated from receipt of a complete notification.
• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, notification templates, controls and legal opinions to reflect the removal of the equivalence prerequisite, the material-impediment test for margin exemptions, the removal of public disclosure, and the revised evidence requirements.
• Firms should review existing public disclosures and websites for margin-exemption information and consider whether information made unnecessary by the new regime should be removed or retained for audit-trail purposes.
• Derivatives, legal and operations teams should reconcile the final FCA BTS with the Treasury SI and identify any changes to transaction documentation, exemption registers, counterparty representations and regulatory reporting procedures.

What changed

The Over-the-Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/1117), made on 21 October 2026, amend Article 3 of UK EMIR so that an intragroup transaction may involve entities in any jurisdiction, provided both counterparties are in the same group, included in the same consolidation on a full basis, and subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures. The reform removes the dependence of permanent intragroup exemptions on an Article 13 UK EMIR equivalence decision.

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2027-02-01

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

2027-06-24 Deadline

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

2027-07-29 Deadline

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

2027-07-30

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

2027-08-31 Deadline

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

2028-06-29 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2023-12-13

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

2026-10-30

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

2026-12-31 Deadline

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

2027-06-30 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-08

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

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-08

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

2026-08-03 Deadline

The consultation period for CP168 closed.

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-05-11

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

2026-06-08

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

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation.

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-08

CSSF consultation on proposed guidance was published.

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholder responses to the consultation.

2026-10-30

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

2027-01-30 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-28

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2025-10-22

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

2026-10-07

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

2026-10-16

The revised UT Code was gazetted.

2026-11-01 Deadline

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

2027-10-31 Deadline

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

2027-11-01 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-20

Utah filed a state-court action against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna trading firms, alleging violations of Utah gambling laws and seeking injunctive relief and recovery of profits.

2026-10-27

The CFTC announced its federal lawsuit against Utah and its commitment to block state enforcement affecting CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms operating or supporting CFTC-registered event-contract markets should consider mapping their products, legal entities, affiliates, liquidity providers and customer-access arrangements against the Utah enforcement action and the CFTC’s requested injunction.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the related Kalshi appeal, and the other state proceedings because the litigation may determine whether state gambling laws can be applied to federally regulated event contracts.
• Firms should consider preserving records supporting CFTC registration, designated-contract-market compliance, product listings, trade surveillance, customer eligibility, geolocation controls and communications concerning Utah residents.
• Market operators and intermediaries may wish to assess whether their current Utah access controls and disclosures remain appropriate in light of the conflicting federal and state positions, without assuming that the CFTC’s lawsuit presently provides a final safe harbor.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to distinguish CFTC-regulated transactions from unregulated or differently structured products, since the Commission’s position is directed at covered transactions on CFTC-regulated markets rather than all prediction, gaming or wagering activity.

What changed

The publication announces litigation rather than a new rule, supervisory requirement, or compliance deadline. The CFTC is asking a federal court to block Utah from investigating or enforcing state laws against transactions conducted on CFTC-regulated designated contract markets, including actions involving regulated entities’ affiliates and partners. The Commission’s stated legal position is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive federal jurisdiction over these event contracts and preempts conflicting state restrictions.

Key dates

2026-10-23

The FCA published the multi-firm review findings and associated supervisory expectations.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a documented gap assessment against the review findings, including whether their conflict framework reflects the substance of UK activities rather than only formal delegation or legal arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to refresh business-model and transaction-level conflict inventories to cover multiple funds, vintages, continuation and evergreen vehicles, affiliated businesses, shared services, capital-structure conflicts, remuneration, valuation, financing, redemptions, asset transfers and exit decisions.
• Firms should consider testing whether conflict identification occurs repeatedly from origination through valuation, allocation, monitoring, restructuring and exit, rather than only at onboarding or transaction approval.
• Firms may wish to define and evidence materiality thresholds, escalation triggers, accountable decision-makers and governance forums for complex or material conflicts, including when engagement with LPs or LP advisory committees is appropriate.
• For cross-fund transfers and continuation transactions, firms should consider independent challenge, valuation oversight, analysis of competing investor interests, documented alternatives and evidence supporting the fairness of the outcome; investor consent or disclosure alone may not demonstrate adequate management.
• Firms should consider reviewing gifts and entertainment controls beyond monetary thresholds, including purpose, recipient, frequency, patterns, inducement risk, approvals, record keeping and compliance monitoring.
• Firms may wish to assess whether information barriers use physical, organisational and system controls, with monitoring and oversight of information sharing, rather than relying primarily on staff judgement and training.
• Senior management and control functions should consider whether second-line compliance has sufficient independence and authority, and whether periodic internal-audit or other third-line reviews provide effective assurance and challenge.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and a statement of FCA expectations, not a new rule or formal implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to identify, assess, record, manage, mitigate and disclose actual, potential and perceived conflicts across the full investment lifecycle, based on the substance, scale and complexity of their UK activities rather than their formal legal structure.

Key dates

2026-10-20

ESMA published its final report on the RTS specifying requirements for PTRR services using the EMIR 3 clearing-obligation exemption.

Suggested considerations

• PTRR providers should compare their existing compression, rebalancing and basis-risk-optimisation procedures with the final ESMA requirements, particularly participant disclosures, algorithm governance, execution controls, record retention and monitoring support.
• Firms should identify OTC derivative transactions processed through PTRR services that are currently expected to rely on the EMIR 3 conditional clearing exemption and document the legal and operational basis for that treatment.
• Compliance and legal teams may wish to review contracts, client disclosures and service descriptions to ensure that participants receive adequate information about the exercise, its methodology, expected outcomes and relevant risks.
• Providers should consider preserving evidence that each exercise meets the applicable risk-reduction and market-risk-neutrality conditions and does not function as a means of avoiding the clearing obligation.
• Firms should prepare for possible changes when the European Commission endorses the RTS, including tracking the endorsement, publication and application dates and updating policies, controls, reporting procedures and staff guidance accordingly.
• Operations and records-management teams should assess whether existing books and records can identify the participants, transactions, algorithms, controls, results and decisions associated with each PTRR exercise for the required supervisory period.
• Users of third-party PTRR services should consider obtaining contractual assurances and sufficient information from providers to demonstrate that transactions claimed as exempt satisfy the final RTS conditions.
• Industry participants may wish to monitor Commission endorsement and any transitional provisions rather than treating the 20 October 2026 publication date as the effective date of the RTS.

What changed

The final report specifies the conditions under which transactions resulting from PTRR services may qualify for the EMIR 3 clearing-obligation exemption, including requirements concerning participant information, the conduct and execution of PTRR exercises, provider controls, record-keeping and supervisory monitoring. The framework addresses the main service types identified in ESMA's consultation: portfolio compression, portfolio rebalancing and basis risk optimisation, with requirements intended to demonstrate risk reduction and prevent circumvention of the clearing obligation.

Key dates

2021-04-22

Beginning of the period in which ASIC alleges the Panacea Capital Cryptocurrency Investment Fund was offered without an AFS licence.

2022-06-17

End of the period in which ASIC alleges the Crypto Fund operated without an AFS licence.

2024-03-21

ASIC announced that Brian Creigh was permanently banned from providing financial services or being involved in a financial services business.

2026-10-19

Creigh was charged in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and granted conditional bail.

2026-10-20

ASIC published the enforcement release announcing the criminal charges.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider confirming that every entity and individual providing financial product advice, dealing, arranging or other financial services in Australia holds the required AFS licence or is properly appointed as an authorised representative for the relevant activities.
• Compliance teams may wish to map digital-asset products against the financial product and financial services definitions in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including where pooled investor money is used to pursue returns from a portfolio of digital assets.
• Firms should consider reviewing marketing materials, fact sheets and investor communications for unsupported claims about licensing status, capital protection, guarantees, historical performance, targeted returns and the nature of underlying investments.
• Compliance teams may wish to strengthen onboarding and ongoing due diligence for digital-asset fund operators, directors, promoters, overseas counterparties and receiving entities, including checks against ASIC banning and disqualification records.
• Firms should consider reviewing transaction-monitoring and escalation controls for investor funds moving to offshore entities or unrelated investment vehicles, with particular attention to circumstances that could raise proceeds-of-crime or fraud concerns.
• Distributors and professional intermediaries may wish to retain evidence of licence verification, product governance reviews, investor disclosures and the basis for any representations made to prospective investors.
• Firms should consider treating the charges as allegations not yet determined by a court and separating the criminal proceeding from ASIC’s earlier administrative banning action when assessing legal, conduct and reputational risk.

What changed

No new licensing rule or general obligation was introduced. The publication announces enforcement proceedings: one charge under section 911A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for carrying on a financial services business without an AFS licence, and one charge under section 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) for dealing with proceeds of crime worth $1 million or more. The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions following ASIC’s referral of a criminal brief.

Key dates

2022-05-12

The CFTC filed its complaint against Alexandre and EminiFX, alleging fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and operation of an unregistered commodity pool.

2026-07-01

As of July 2026, the court-appointed receiver had returned more than $98 million to over 28,000 investors.

2026-10-19

The CFTC announced that the Southern District of New York had entered orders granting summary judgment, injunctive relief, and a civil monetary penalty against Alexandre and EminiFX.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory products, investment clubs, managed accounts, and digital-asset offerings that pool customer contributions and obtain exposure to forex, futures, options, or other commodity interests.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their activities constitute operating a commodity pool or acting as a commodity pool operator or associated person under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, including whether registration or an available exemption is required.
• Firms should consider validating marketing claims about returns, automated trading, proprietary technology, trading results, and risk, with particular scrutiny of unusually high or consistent returns such as weekly performance representations.
• Compliance teams may wish to test segregation, custody, reconciliation, withdrawal, and use-of-funds controls to detect commingling, personal use of customer assets, payments to earlier investors, and unexplained transfers.
• Firms should consider maintaining evidence supporting reported performance, trading activity, investor statements, and asset ownership so that customer communications can be reconciled to underlying records.
• Digital-asset businesses may wish to review whether crypto terminology or a technology-focused structure obscures activities that remain subject to commodities, anti-fraud, registration, or customer-protection requirements.
• Firms should consider escalating suspected misappropriation, fabricated performance, or unregistered commodity-pool activity through applicable internal investigation, suspicious-activity, and regulatory-reporting processes.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or generally applicable regulatory amendment. The Southern District of New York entered summary judgment and injunctive relief against Alexandre and EminiFX, finding that the defendants made fraudulent representations, misappropriated investor funds, and operated as an unregistered commodity pool operator, with Alexandre acting in an unregistered associated-person capacity. The judgment imposes $228,576,962 of restitution, $15,049,500 of disgorgement subject to offset by restitution payments, and a $45,148,500 civil monetary penalty.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 66022 and the public comment period begins.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory sports-, political-, cultural-, and weather-related event contracts offered, intermediated, traded, or supported by the organization and document the current legal classification of each product.
• Firms may wish to assess whether affected activities could require CFTC registration, designated contract market or swap execution facility arrangements, swap data reporting, recordkeeping, customer-protection controls, business-conduct procedures, clearing or margin analysis, and applicable anti-manipulation and surveillance controls if the proposal is finalized.
• Platforms and intermediaries may wish to map product design, settlement terms, pricing, transferability, trading venue, customer type, and liquidity arrangements against the proposed swap definition and identify products whose classification is uncertain.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the separate CFTC treatment of casino-style gambling products and distinguish state- or tribally licensed sportsbook and casino wagers from market-traded event contracts; the companion treatment should not be assumed to apply to prediction-market products.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of “event contract,” treatment of secondary-market trading, jurisdictional overlap with state gambling authorities, implementation timing, and any operational or cost impacts before the November 18, 2026 deadline.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to track litigation and appeals concerning CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, because court developments could affect the interpretation or implementation of any final rule.

What changed

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 3038-AF82, would further define “swap” to explicitly include specified event contracts, including contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather. The CFTC describes these instruments as financial products commonly understood in the trade to be swaps and seeks to resolve perceived ambiguity over their classification and regulatory jurisdiction.

Key dates

2026-10-16

ESMA published Q&As 2949, 2950, 2936, 2937 and 2938.

2025-06-25

The EMIR 3 active account regime began applying to counterparties already within scope after the six-month implementation period.

Suggested considerations

• CASPs should consider mapping each client-funds flow against MiCA Article 70(2) and (3), documenting the end-of-next-business-day transfer control and verifying that any intermediary-held credit-institution account is specifically held for the CASP and technically segregated.
• CASPs and their payment-service-provider partners may wish to review contractual terms, account mandates, insolvency protections, reconciliation processes and evidence demonstrating clients’ ownership rights and prohibition of proprietary use.
• Crowdfunding providers using registration, membership or access fees should consider documenting why their model does or does not constitute a crowdfunding service under Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 and reviewing website disclosures, fee descriptions, client communications and investor-protection controls.
• AAR counterparties should recalculate the 12-month aggregate month-end average gross notional position, including the applicable group perimeter and excluding client-clearing activity, against the EUR 6 billion and EUR 100 billion thresholds.
• AAR counterparties relying on the 85% exemption should consider testing the one-half rule across the relevant derivative classes, retaining the underlying EU-CCP clearing data and avoiding any assumption that the exemption removes the representativeness requirement.
• Affected counterparties should review trade-level residual-maturity data, bucket allocation, annual-average trade counts and reporting calendars so that representative clearing can be demonstrated at the applicable reporting date.
• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, procedures, management information and regulatory inventories to distinguish ESMA Q&A interpretive expectations from directly binding Level 1 and Level 2 requirements.

What changed

For CASPs, ESMA clarifies that client funds may be temporarily held in an account with a non-bank payment service provider, such as a payment institution or electronic money institution, provided the funds are transferred to an account with a credit institution or central bank no later than the end of the business day following receipt.

Key dates

2026-10-16

SFC welcomed HKEX’s consultation conclusions on the proposed transition from T+2 to T+1; HKEX published the consultation conclusions on the same date.

2028-09-01

September 2028 is identified as HKEX’s target month for implementation within the broader second-half-of-2028 timetable, subject to market readiness, regulatory approval and final rule and procedure amendments.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all Hong Kong cash-market products, trading venues, settlement locations and transaction types that may fall within the final T+1 scope, including stock-option physical settlement where relevant.
• Compliance and operations teams may wish to perform an end-to-end impact assessment covering trade capture, allocation, confirmation, affirmation, settlement-instruction creation and matching, funding, stock borrowing, corporate actions, reconciliations, fails management and client reporting.
• Firms should assess whether overseas time zones, foreign-exchange funding, cross-border custody arrangements and client approval processes will effectively create a T+0 operating deadline for US- and European-based investors.
• Broker-dealers, custodians and investment managers should review service-level agreements, settlement cut-offs, standing settlement instructions, client documentation, fail-allocation terms and contractual responsibility for late or failed settlement.
• Technology teams may wish to test automation, real-time or near-real-time status updates, API connectivity, matching, exception queues, reconciliation and management information against the compressed timetable.
• Firms should engage HKEX, HKSCC, executing brokers, custodians, prime brokers, fund administrators and other vendors on technical specifications, testing windows, training and readiness assessments as they become available.
• Risk and treasury functions may wish to reassess intraday liquidity, pre-funding, collateral, stock-borrow availability, overdraft capacity, settlement-fail exposure and related client-margin assumptions.
• Compliance teams should monitor the consequential amendments to HKEX and HKSCC rules and procedures, SFC communications, regulatory approvals and any final scope, cut-off, penalty or fail-management provisions before treating the September 2028 date as firm.

What changed

HKEX proposes to settle in-scope Hong Kong cash-market transactions one business day after trade date rather than two business days. The transition is subject to market readiness, regulatory approval and consequential amendments to applicable HKEX and settlement-system rules and procedures; the SFC says it will work with HKEX on those amendments and implementation arrangements.

Key dates

2026-10-15

ESMA published the updated transparency manual and added the OTC derivative reference-data guidance, tick-size Q&As and recommendations.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map OTC derivatives currently treated as subject to transparency against the identifying reference-data requirements in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003.
• Firms should consider reviewing instrument-master, transaction-reporting and transparency-publication workflows to ensure OTC derivative identifiers and related reference data can be supplied consistently to relevant publication and consolidated-tape processes.
• Trading venues may wish to assess tick-size logic for subscription rights and verify that the liquidity band applied is aligned with the underlying share, while documenting any intervention or exception decisions against the manual's recommendations.
• Investment firms and trading venues should consider reviewing existing MiFID II/MiFIR transparency procedures, controls and vendor specifications in light of the manual's Q&As and the distinction between current guidance and draft OTC reference-data guidance.
• Firms should monitor the entry into force of the related RTS 2 and consolidated tape provider input/output standards and be prepared to refresh implementation plans, testing and contractual data specifications when those standards become applicable.
• Nationally supervised firms may wish to retain evidence showing how tick-size decisions, venue interventions and escalation to competent authorities were assessed against the updated supervisory-convergence material.

What changed

The manual clarifies that OTC derivatives subject to transparency must be identified using the identifying reference data specified by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003, supporting consistent reporting and publication through the consolidated tape. It also explains how that reference data should be provided for transparency purposes; ESMA states this part should be treated as draft until the related RTS 2 and RTS on consolidated tape provider input/output data enter into force.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Approximate beginning of the alleged delayed-allocation and cherry-picking conduct.

2023-10-31

Approximate end of the alleged conduct period.

2024-11-25

The SEC filed its civil complaint against Leech concerning the alleged allocation scheme.

2025-01-21

The district court reportedly stayed the SEC civil action pending resolution of the parallel criminal prosecution.

2026-06-05

The SEC instituted settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty and establishing a Fair Fund for affected investors.

2026-10-06

The SEC reported the consent resolution and final-judgment process against Leech, including a $3 million penalty, permanent injunctions and an officer-and-director bar.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing whether each block or derivatives trade is assigned to intended portfolios at or near execution, with documented reasons, approvals and timestamps for any necessary delay.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether allocation systems and workflows prevent personnel from using intraday price movements, daily settlement prices or first-day performance to select recipient accounts.
• Firms should consider surveillance comparing execution time, allocation-entry time, settlement-price availability, subsequent performance and recipient portfolio across portfolio managers and strategies.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate statistically significant differences in allocation latency, first-day gains and losses, reallocations, exception rates and benefits received by particular portfolios, fee arrangements or clients.
• Advisers should consider reconciling written fair-allocation and reallocation procedures with actual operating practices, including practices followed by chief investment officers and other highly senior personnel.
• Firms should consider preserving allocation instructions and related communications from trading platforms, order-management systems, email, messaging tools and manual worksheets in a form suitable for supervisory review.
• Compliance teams may wish to enhance escalation procedures for delayed allocations, repeated reallocations, unexplained exceptions and material performance differences among similarly situated accounts.
• Advisers should consider reviewing client disclosures and policies describing pro rata, fair or equitable allocation methodologies against the firm’s actual allocation logic and exceptions.

What changed

This is an enforcement resolution, not a new rule or prospective compliance deadline. It reinforces that delayed post-execution allocation can create an Advisers Act antifraud and fiduciary-duty violation where the decision-maker can observe market or settlement-price information before assigning trades to client portfolios. The matter also signals that written allocation policies are insufficient if firms do not operate, test and supervise them effectively, particularly for senior investment personnel.

Key dates

2026-10-13

The FCA and NCA arrested three suspects, searched five residential premises in London and Manchester, and seized more than 30 mobile phones, laptops and tablets in an ongoing investigation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether market-abuse surveillance covers relevant instruments, trading venues, employee dealing, client orders, communications and potential information-sharing networks, with risk-based scenarios for insider dealing and manipulation.
• Firms should consider testing escalation procedures for suspected inside information, including preservation of communications and devices, prompt investigation, documented decision-making and submission of suspicious transaction and order reports where required.
• Firms subject to UK anti-money-laundering requirements may wish to assess whether insider-dealing alerts are linked to customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting and source-of-funds or source-of-wealth reviews.
• Senior management and control functions may wish to confirm that restricted lists, wall-crossing procedures, information barriers, personal-account dealing controls, conflicts controls and staff training remain appropriate for organised or externally coordinated threats.
• Firms may wish to ensure that surveillance records, alert rationales, investigation files and relevant electronic communications can be retrieved promptly if the FCA requests information or conducts an enforcement investigation.
• Relevant firms should consider reminding employees and connected persons that disclosing or using inside information, recommending transactions, or encouraging others to trade can create criminal and regulatory exposure; any communication should avoid implying that the arrested individuals have been charged or found guilty.

What changed

No new obligation, rule, threshold or compliance deadline was introduced. The publication announces an ongoing criminal investigation involving arrests, searches and evidence seizures, and confirms that the FCA is using its market-abuse and financial-crime enforcement powers jointly with the NCA. The FCA reported four insider-dealing convictions in 2025/26, including two cases producing combined prison sentences of 11 years, and fines totalling £1.77 million imposed on 12 people for insider dealing, market manipulation and misleading statements.

Key dates

2026-10-13

ASIC announced the interim stop order against Fidante Partners Limited; the order is stated to remain in force for 21 days unless revoked earlier.

Suggested considerations

• Fidante and relevant distributors should consider immediately suppressing retail issuance, PDS delivery and covered general advice activities within the scope of the stop order, while confirming the order’s operative terms and any revocation or variation.
• Fund issuers should consider conducting a documented TMD review against the product’s actual risks, liquidity and redemption arrangements, including whether capital-preservation language is compatible with exposure to global syndicated loans, asset-backed securities, derivatives and subordinated or residual CLO tranches.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether stated risk classifications and portfolio-allocation limits are supported by the product’s loss profile, volatility, liquidity and concentration characteristics, with particular attention to any allowance for retail investors to allocate up to 50% of investable assets.
• Distributors should consider reviewing advice files, platform controls, marketing materials and distribution data to determine whether retail clients outside an appropriately defined target market may have received the product or recommendations concerning it.
• Issuers and distributors of comparable private credit products should consider benchmarking TMD descriptions of risk appetite, capital preservation, liquidity and maximum portfolio allocation against ASIC’s concerns in this action and recent private-credit stop orders.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving records of the TMD review, distribution controls, complaints, significant dealings and escalation decisions, and assessing whether changes to the product design, target market or distribution arrangements are necessary under the DDO review framework.

What changed

This is an enforcement intervention rather than a new generally applicable rule. Until the order is revoked or expires, Fidante must not deal in the Class A units, give or distribute a product disclosure statement for the product, or provide general financial product advice to retail clients recommending an investment in it.

Key dates

2026-10-13

Federal Register publication date for the ANPRM, published as 91 FR 64811 and document number 2026-20888.

2026-12-14 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the CFTC on Regulation CTX, Regulation CAM, and the interpretation and implementation of CEA section 2(c)(2)(D).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned retail crypto products could constitute transactions covered by CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including products described as spot, margin, leveraged, financed, perpetual, or otherwise structured to defer delivery.
• Firms should consider mapping current customer agreements, funding arrangements, custody models, delivery controls, and liquidation processes against the CFTC's preliminary positions on offers and actual delivery.
• Prospective venues may wish to assess the potential CAM operating model, including registration perimeter, governance, listing standards, market surveillance, position controls, execution, recordkeeping, cyber and system safeguards, proof-of-reserves, and customer-asset arrangements.
• FCMs, IBs, DCOs, custodians, and leverage providers should consider identifying the registrations, permissions, capital, segregation, margin, clearing, insolvency, and operational dependencies that a CAM structure could create.
• Crypto businesses may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of section 2(c)(2)(D), the definition and practical test for actual delivery, treatment of fully paid open transactions, permissible crypto assets, and the allocation of responsibilities among CAMs, FCMs, DCOs, and leverage providers.
• Firms should monitor whether the CFTC follows the ANPRM with a formal proposed rule and should not treat the ANPRM as creating immediate registration, margin, reporting, or conduct obligations.
• Affected firms may wish to preserve evidence of product design, delivery capability, customer disclosures, surveillance controls, and legal analysis in anticipation of supervisory or enforcement scrutiny under the CFTC's stated interpretation of section 2(c)(2)(D).

What changed

The CFTC has published ANPRM RIN 3038-AF80, 91 FR 64811, concerning proposed Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets. Regulation CTX would seek to clarify when section 2(c)(2)(D) applies to crypto asset transactions, including the meaning of covered offers, actual delivery, and actual delivery of fully paid open transactions. Regulation CAM would create a crypto asset market subcategory of designated contract market registration under 17 CFR part 38, supported by related amendments or requirements under 17 CFR parts 1, 38, and 39.

Key dates

2026-10-09

CFTC announced publication of the NPRM concerning inclusion of certain event contracts in the definition of swap and identified a 30-day comment period beginning on Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory event contracts by underlying event, settlement structure, customer type, and current legal classification, including whether each product is a binary option, another swap, a future, a security-based swap, or a casino-style gambling product.
• Potential operators, DCMs, SEFs, registrants, trade associations, and affected customers should consider submitting written comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register; the Federal Register publication date and resulting calendar deadline should be monitored because the CFTC release does not specify either date.
• Firms may wish to assess whether current exchange, venue, customer-eligibility, market-surveillance, anti-manipulation, product-certification, disclosure, margin, reporting, and recordkeeping controls would support treatment of relevant contracts as swaps under existing CFTC requirements.
• Operators currently relying on state licenses may wish to evaluate the potential need for DCM or SEF arrangements, CFTC registration, federal compliance infrastructure, and transitional management of overlapping state and federal obligations if the rule is finalized.
• DCMs and SEFs may wish to review product-listing governance against CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C), applicable core principles, and 17 CFR 40.2(c), including whether particular contracts are readily susceptible to manipulation or involve gaming or other activity contrary to the public interest.
• Legal and tax teams may wish to keep CEA classification separate from federal tax and information-reporting analysis, which the NPRM states will continue to depend on the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, and IRS guidance.
• Firms may wish to monitor the separate CFTC action concerning casino-style gambling products and assess how the two rulemakings interact for products near the boundary between event contracts and gambling wagers.

What changed

The NPRM, RIN 3038-AF82, would add proposed 17 CFR 1.3(Swap)(2)(i)(G): “Event contracts, including those based on sports-, politics-, cultural, and weather-related events.” The CFTC relies on several existing swap-definition provisions, including CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), covering options, transactions dependent on events with potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences, instruments commonly known as swaps, and combinations or permutations of covered instruments.

Key dates

2026-10-09

The CFTC announced the interim final rule.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify sportsbook, casino, lottery, bingo, raffle, and other wagering products in their portfolios and map each product against the provider, licensing, State or Tribal regulatory, and trading-venue conditions in 17 CFR 1.3(7).
• Licensed gaming operators should retain evidence that each relevant product is offered within the scope of the applicable State or Tribal authorization and is regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable law.
• Operators and market intermediaries should assess whether any product is traded on an exchange, board of trade, swap execution facility, or other multilateral or individually negotiated market, because that structure prevents reliance on the specific exclusion.
• Prediction-market and derivatives businesses should maintain a separate legal analysis for products that fail the exclusion; failure to qualify does not by itself establish that a product is a swap.
• CFTC-regulated market participants should compare the rule's house-versus-customer and price-formation distinctions with their event-contract inventories, exchange rules, clearing arrangements, and product approvals.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after Federal Register publication, referencing RIN 3038-AF81 and the title "Further Definition of Swap to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products."
• Compliance teams should continue evaluating applicable State gaming, Tribal gaming, tax, consumer-protection, licensing, and other federal requirements because the rule addresses CEA classification only and does not displace those regimes.

What changed

The rule adds 17 CFR 1.3(7) to the definition of "Swap" and excludes an agreement, contract, or transaction offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., acting within the scope of that authorization and subject to State or Tribal gaming regulation. The product must not be traded on a board of trade, organized exchange, swap execution facility, or any other market where trades are executed multilaterally or are subject to individual negotiation.

Key dates

2026-10-09

SEC issued the proposal to amend Investment Company Act Rule 17a-7.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine which corporate, municipal and other fixed-income holdings are currently excluded from Rule 17a-7 cross-trading because they lack a readily available market quotation under the valuation-rule framework.
• Firms should consider assessing potential execution-cost savings, liquidity benefits and conflicts risks from expanded internal crossing, using the SEC’s indication that market impact is concentrated among larger fund families and that corporate-bond cross-trading materially declined after the valuation-rule compliance date.
• Registered fund advisers may wish to review pricing governance, independent price verification, best-execution analysis, allocation controls and conflict-management procedures in anticipation of any final rule.
• Firms may wish to map the data needed for the proposed aggregated cross-trade reporting and test whether existing order-management, compliance-monitoring and regulatory-reporting systems can capture it.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments during the 60-day period after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register, particularly on eligible security classes, pricing methodologies, reporting granularity and oversight conditions.
• Until a final rule becomes effective, firms should continue applying the existing Section 17(a), Rule 17a-7 and Rule 2a-5 requirements and should not treat the proposal as a current exemption.

What changed

The proposal would amend Rule 17a-7, the exemption from Section 17(a) for specified purchases and sales between a registered investment company and certain affiliated persons. It would generally restore eligibility for cross-trading most fixed-income securities, which became substantially unavailable after the SEC’s adoption of the Investment Company Act valuation rule in 2020, while modernizing the conditions governing pricing and oversight to reflect more verifiable and transparent market pricing.

Key dates

2012-06-30

End of the financial year for the LM Managed Performance Fund audit giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings.

2018-12-05

The CADB cancelled Mr Williams’ registration as a company auditor and ordered him to pay ASIC’s costs fixed at $200,000.

2025-06-18

Justice Perry dismissed Mr Williams’ Federal Court application for judicial review of the CADB decision.

2026-10-09

The Full Federal Court dismissed Mr Williams’ appeal, upheld the primary judgment and ordered him to pay the costs of the appeal.

Suggested considerations

• Audit firms should consider reviewing engagement-partner accountability arrangements to ensure that supervision, review and final audit conclusions are documented and cannot be characterized as delegated away.
• Registered auditors should consider testing whether audit files demonstrate adequate work on matters highlighted in the underlying proceedings, including loan and receivable valuation, impairment and recoverability, going concern, related-party loans, management fees, materiality and the basis for the audit opinion.
• Compliance and quality-management teams may wish to assess whether engagement quality reviews and consultations sufficiently challenge significant judgments and unresolved audit deficiencies before the report is signed.
• Firms should consider confirming that use of specialists, junior staff, component auditors or other team members is supported by appropriate direction, supervision, review and documented auditor responsibility.
• Australian audit practices may wish to monitor CADB and Federal Court decisions for further interpretation of the requirement under section 1292 of the Corporations Act 2001 that auditor duties be performed adequately and properly.
• Companies and fund managers may wish to consider whether their auditor oversight processes identify recurring deficiencies in valuation, related-party disclosures, fee recognition, going-concern assessments and audit materiality.

What changed

No new statutory obligation or compliance deadline was introduced. The judgment leaves in place the CADB’s cancellation of Mr Williams’ registration and the earlier findings that his audit of the LM Managed Performance Fund for the year ended 30 June 2012 was not performed adequately and properly. The Full Court confirmed that no legal or jurisdictional error had been established in the CADB’s decision-making and upheld the primary judge’s recognition of the CADB’s specialist expertise, subject to procedural fairness.

Key dates

2026-06-30

The three Funds had $251.8 million in assets under management, according to ASIC’s background information.

2026-10-08

ASIC announced the interim stop order, which took effect to halt offers, issues, sales and transfers under the affected PDSs while the order remains in force.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review retail private-credit PDSs against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C(3), 1013D and 1013F and ASIC Regulatory Guide 168, with particular attention to whether material risks and costs are presented clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile all stated loan-portfolio and diversification metrics to current underlying data, define the calculation methodology and test whether concentration by property type, geography, borrower, security ranking, loan-to-value ratio and maturity is readily understandable.
• Firms should consider documenting all costs associated with disposing of, redeeming or transferring an interest, including circumstances in which an exit may be delayed, restricted or priced below investor expectations.
• Product issuers may wish to explain the purpose, funding, governance, triggers, permitted uses and limitations of any investor reserve, impairment or capital-loss account, including whether it provides contractual protection or merely represents an internal allocation.
• Distribution teams should consider suspending or reviewing affected marketing, application and transfer processes where a PDS is subject to a stop order, and checking that advisers and platforms are not facilitating prohibited conduct.
• Private-credit fund managers should consider broader reviews of fee structures, margin arrangements, valuation and impairment practices, liquidity, conflicts of interest and retail-client distribution, given the issues identified in independent industry reporting as part of ASIC’s broader 2026 scrutiny of the sector.
• Boards, responsible entities and compliance committees may wish to retain evidence of PDS review, data validation, legal sign-off, escalation and remediation decisions in anticipation of further ASIC surveillance or a final stop-order process.

What changed

The interim stop order applies to the PDSs for the ASCF Premium Capital Fund, ASCF Select Income Fund and ASCF High Yield Fund. While the order remains in force, ASCF cannot offer, issue, sell or transfer interests under those PDSs. This is an enforcement action rather than a sector-wide rule change; however, ASIC’s application of the Corporations Act 2001 PDS and stop-order provisions reinforces that private-credit issuers must explain loan-portfolio composition, diversification metrics, the cost of disposing of an interest and the operation of investor reserve accounts in a sufficiently...

Key dates

2021-01-01

Beginning of the alleged cherry-picking period involving delayed allocations and disproportionate assignment of first-day gains and losses.

2023-10-31

End of the alleged cherry-picking period, described by the SEC as running through October 2023.

2024-11-01

The SEC filed its prior litigated district-court complaint against Leech; the source identifies November 2024 but does not specify the filing day.

2026-06-05

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty, censure, cease-and-desist order, and Fair Fund process.

2026-10-06

The SEC announced its motion for entry of a consent final judgment against Leech; the judgment remains subject to court approval.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether trade timestamps, allocation timestamps, order-entry records, and market settlement-price data permit detection of allocations made after material price movements are known.
• Firms should consider testing allocation controls for fairness and consistency across strategies, accounts, clients, and affiliated portfolios, including review of first-day gains and losses and unexplained deviations among portfolio managers.
• Firms should consider validating that written allocation, reallocation, and error-correction procedures are implemented in practice, with documented approvals, exception handling, and independent oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether portfolio-manager trading and allocation practices diverge materially from peers or from client disclosures, and whether those differences trigger escalation, surveillance, or enhanced supervision.
• Investment advisers should consider reviewing supervisory arrangements for senior investment personnel, including evidence that surveillance alerts, exception reports, and known control weaknesses are investigated and remediated.
• Firms should consider preserving records sufficient to reconstruct the timing and rationale of trade placement, allocation, reallocation, and approval decisions, and reviewing whether disclosures accurately describe fair and equitable allocation practices.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the court’s decision on the proposed Leech judgment and the administration of Western Asset’s Fair Fund; no general compliance deadline is stated in the publication.

What changed

This publication does not establish a new generally applicable rule; it advances a case-specific consent judgment, subject to court approval, against Leech. The proposed judgment includes a $3 million penalty, a permanent injunction against violations of the federal securities-law antifraud provisions, an officer-and-director bar, and a forthcoming associational bar. The related June 5, 2026 administrative settlement against Western Asset imposed a $100 million civil penalty, censure, and cease-and-desist order, with the penalty deposited into a Fair Fund for harmed investors.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63676 and the comment period opened.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule are due to the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether existing or proposed fund products could use the regulated-fund performance-compensation pathway and map each arrangement against the proposed 20% net-gains cap, specified-period methodology, governance requirements, and board-determination condition.
• Advisers and fund sponsors should consider inventorying current performance-fee arrangements and identifying clients who could become eligible under the proposed accredited-investor route, without treating the proposal as authority to implement changes before adoption and an applicable compliance date.
• Fund sponsors may wish to assess the operational and disclosure impact of separately reporting performance-based compensation in Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-CSR, including fee-table, prospectus, financial-reporting, and board-material changes.
• Adviser compliance programs should consider reviewing Rule 205-3 eligibility controls, investor-classification procedures, accredited-investor evidence, client look-through analysis, and controls for the related Rule 203A-3, Rule 204-3, and Form ADV amendments.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate how performance-fee proposals would affect fiduciary-duty analysis, conflicts management, valuation, incentive alignment, investor communications, and approval documentation.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments by December 7, 2026, particularly on the 20% cap, specified performance period, governance conditions, disclosure design, accredited-investor eligibility, and transition or compliance-period issues.

What changed

Proposed amendments to Investment Advisers Act Rule 205-3 would create an additional route for registered investment advisers to receive compensation based on capital gains or capital appreciation from registered management investment companies and business development companies, collectively referred to as regulated funds.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 63870, covering pages 63870-64103.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Public comments must be received by the SEC on or before this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether client or fund crypto assets are currently held through arrangements that would constitute adviser or regulated-fund self-custody under the proposal, including arrangements involving service providers, private keys, wallets, or decentralized finance protocols.
• Firms should consider mapping proposed requirements for key management, joint authorization, asset segregation, safeguarding expertise, cybersecurity, incident response, annual review, internal control reporting, and client or investor account statements against existing custody, information-security, and operational-resilience controls.
• Advisers and regulated funds may wish to assess whether existing custodians, including state trust companies, could satisfy the proposed authorization, policy, audit, internal-control, and segregation conditions.
• Compliance teams should consider preparing comments for File No. S7-2026-35 by December 7, 2026, particularly on the proposed scope of self-custody, the qualified-custodian determination, treatment of airdropped crypto assets, decentralized finance activity, and the interaction with existing custody arrangements.
• Firms should assess potential changes to Form ADV, Form ADV-E, Form N-CEN, custody records, crypto-network records, audited financial statements, and accountant reports if the proposal is adopted.
• Investment advisers and regulated funds may wish to inventory tokenized private funds and tokenized regulated-fund shares in anticipation of the proposed additional Form ADV and Form N-CEN questions.
• Firms should distinguish proposal-stage planning from current legal obligations because the publication does not itself impose the proposed requirements and does not establish a final compliance date.

What changed

The proposal would add an adviser self-custody framework under proposed Advisers Act rule 223-1(b)(7), allowing an adviser to self-custody client crypto assets only in specified circumstances and subject to conditions addressing safeguarding expertise, documented safeguarding systems, key management, joint authorization, segregation, cybersecurity risk assessment, threat and vulnerability management, incident response and recovery, annual review, an internal control report, and client account statements.

Key dates

2026-09-14

EDGAR Release 26.3 was deployed. LIVE and TEST submissions became available for ANE Exception Notices, withdrawals, Form 1, and specified Form 1 variants; the revised EDGAR functionality and interfaces became operational.

2026-10-06

The final rule became effective, and incorporation by reference of the revised EDGAR Filer Manual Volume II, Version 78, into the Code of Federal Regulations was approved.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Last day on which ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals may be submitted by email.

2027-01-01 Deadline

ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals must be submitted electronically through the EDGAR online interface or by filer-constructed EDGAR submission; email submissions will no longer be accepted.

2027-03-01 Deadline

Last day on which Form 1 and specified Form 1 variants may be filed in paper.

2027-03-02 Deadline

Form 1 and specified variants must be submitted electronically through the EDGAR online interface or by filer-constructed EDGAR submission; paper filings will no longer be accepted.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals that could be submitted between January 1, 2027 and December 31, 2026, and establish procedures using the EDGAR online interface or filer-constructed submissions before the mandatory transition.
• Affected Form 1 filers may wish to obtain or validate EDGAR access, submit Form ID where required, and migrate filing procedures from paper to the EDGAR interface or filer-constructed submissions before March 2, 2027.
• Firms may wish to use the EDGAR test environment and, where applicable, the EDGAR Beta environment to test user access, filer-constructed submissions, validation, acknowledgments, and correction workflows.
• Filing teams may wish to update internal checklists and software templates for the corrected Forms 13F and 13F-CTR reference to Special Instruction 4.
• XBRL filers and filing agents may wish to replace references to the former Volume II XBRL instructions with the EDGAR XBRL Guide and confirm that current taxonomies and technical specifications are being used.
• Firms may wish to retain evidence of successful testing, accepted submissions, filing acknowledgments, and fallback procedures during the transition periods.
• Compliance teams may wish to review EDGAR access credentials, CIK status, delegated filing permissions, and responsible-person coverage for any filer converting from paper to electronic filing.

What changed

EDGAR Release 26.3 was deployed on September 14, 2026, and the SEC adopted the corresponding Filer Manual amendments as Version 78. Technical instructions for submitting XBRL documents were removed from Filer Manual Volume II and relocated to the EDGAR XBRL Guide. EDGAR submission templates for Forms 13F and 13F-CTR were corrected so that the cover-page reference points to Special Instruction 4 rather than Special Instruction 5.

Key dates

2026-10-05

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the remarks at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium and publicly described the CFTC-SEC crypto-asset classification framework and the shift toward formal crypto market regulation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory each supported token and document its likely classification under the five-category framework, including the facts supporting treatment as a digital commodity, digital collectible, digital tool, stablecoin, or digital security.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether their products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including transactions involving margin, leverage, financing, or other arrangements that may require execution on or registration with a CFTC-registered venue.
• Crypto exchanges and trading platforms may wish to assess whether their activities could require DCM registration, a future crypto-asset-market registration, SEC registration, or multiple registrations depending on the asset and service provided.
• Issuers and platforms may wish to preserve evidence concerning network functionality, decentralization, token utility, marketing, purchaser expectations, transfer restrictions, and the separation of a crypto asset from any investment contract.
• Firms may wish to maintain controls addressing customer-asset segregation, custody, conflicts of interest, orderly trading, market surveillance, anti-manipulation, recordkeeping, and AML obligations, because the speech criticizes state money-transmission licensing as insufficient to provide federal market protections.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the CFTC and SEC rulemaking dockets and distinguish the Chairman's personal views, the joint interpretation, proposed rules, and any final rules or effective compliance dates.
• U.S. and offshore groups serving U.S. customers may wish to reassess their territorial and solicitation controls because the policy direction is intended to offer a federal pathway without eliminating the risk of CFTC or SEC jurisdiction over offshore conduct.

What changed

The Chairman described a joint CFTC-SEC interpretation that classifies crypto assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. The interpretation reportedly provides that digital commodities, digital collectibles, and digital tools are generally not securities; stablecoins may in some circumstances be securities; and digital securities remain subject to the federal securities laws.

Key dates

2026-10-02

CP26/34 consultation opened and the FCA published the consultation paper and draft implementation materials.

2026-11-06 Deadline

Deadline for responses to CP26/34.

2027-04-03

FCA target date for publication of the final Transaction Reporting User Pack.

2028-04-03 Deadline

New UK transaction reporting rules in MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15 come into force; FCA systems switch to the new schema and validation rules and UK MiFIR reporting formats cease to be accepted.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider submitting responses to CP26/34 by 6 November 2026, particularly on whether the proposed guidance and transitional provisions resolve practical implementation uncertainties.
• Compliance and regulatory reporting teams may wish to map current UK MiFIR reporting processes, fields, instrument populations, back-reporting logic and delegation arrangements against MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15.
• Firms should assess the impact of reducing the reporting-field population from 65 to 52, removing EU-only instruments and excluding qualifying FX derivatives, while separately validating that CFDs, spread bets and other retained instruments remain correctly captured.
• Technology and operations teams should review the FCA draft schema and validation rules, identify data-source and transformation changes, and begin controlled testing before the 3 April 2028 cutover.
• Firms should plan for parallel controls over transaction reports, instrument reference data and order book data during migration, including reconciliation, exception management, resubmission and audit-trail requirements.
• Firms considering conditional single-sided reporting should assess counterparty eligibility, reliance controls, data-quality monitoring, contractual arrangements and fallback procedures before changing reporting responsibilities.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish the three-year default back-reporting period from applicable record-retention obligations and maintain evidence supporting any decision to use the reduced lookback.
• Firms should monitor the FCA's planned Q1 2027 consultation and subsequent final Transaction Reporting User Pack, and align implementation governance, vendor deliverables and staff training to the final materials.

What changed

CP26/34 does not propose a new substantive reporting perimeter; it provides implementation detail for the rules introduced in PS26/15. The FCA is consulting on guidance explaining the new rules, transitional arrangements, amendments referring to MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15, and the migration of relevant existing Level 3 Materials into a new Transaction Reporting User Pack.

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.