Investment Management

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

2021-12-20

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

2026-08-31

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

2026-11-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-04

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

2026-11-03

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

2027-02-01

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

2027-06-24 Deadline

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

2027-07-29 Deadline

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

2027-07-30

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

2027-08-31 Deadline

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

2028-06-29 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2027-02-01

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

2027-06-24

FCA authorisation gateway opens for ESG rating providers.

2027-07-31 Deadline

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

2027-08-31 Deadline

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

2028-06-29 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-02

MAS announced the grant scheme, commenced Consultation Paper P018-2026, and the Infrastructure Capability Development Grant took effect.

2026-12-18 Deadline

Deadline for comments on MAS Consultation Paper P018-2026 concerning capital treatment for securitisation and infrastructure investments under RBC 2.

2026-03-31

Earlier RBC 2 revisions concerning differentiated capital treatment for qualifying infrastructure investments took effect; this is relevant background to the current consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and regulatory affairs teams should review Consultation Paper P018-2026 and consider submitting comments to MAS by 18 December 2026.
• Insurers should distinguish the currently effective RBC 2 requirements from the proposed capital treatments and avoid applying the proposed lower charges before the relevant amendments take effect.
• Investment, risk and actuarial teams should inventory infrastructure debt, infrastructure equity and securitisation exposures and assess which assets could potentially satisfy the proposed credit-quality, contractual-revenue, demand-risk, counterparty, securitisation, diversification and liquidity criteria.
• Firms should review their investment due-diligence, valuation, credit-assessment and documentation processes so that qualifying characteristics can be evidenced and maintained throughout the investment lifecycle.
• Insurers considering the grant should contact MAS to obtain the Infrastructure Capability Development Grant terms, eligibility requirements, application process, eligible-cost rules and reporting conditions.
• Firms should monitor MAS updates on standardised disclosure templates, assessment guidance and fund-manager declarations and assess whether investment mandates and manager reporting can support those formats.
• Insurers should monitor MAS recognition of additional external credit assessment institutions and review whether expanded recognised-rating coverage could affect sourcing, eligibility or capital calculations.
• Governance committees should consider whether proposed infrastructure allocations remain consistent with policyholder protection, asset-liability management, concentration limits, liquidity needs and existing investment-risk policies.

What changed

The Infrastructure Capability Development Grant takes effect on 2 November 2026 and will be funded through the Financial Sector Development Fund. It may support dedicated investment teams, staff capability development, and professional services used to establish or expand infrastructure investment activities in Singapore; insurers must approach MAS for scheme details and eligibility conditions. MAS is consulting on further amendments to the insurance capital framework under RBC 2.

Key dates

2026-11-02

MAS published Circular ID 12/26 and opened consultation P018-2026 on capital treatment for securitisation and infrastructure investments under RBC 2.

2026-11-02

The S$30 million Infrastructure Capability Development Grant for Insurers took effect, subject to MAS grant arrangements.

2026-12-18 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments on consultation P018-2026.

2026-03-31

Earlier finalised RBC 2 revisions to the capital treatment of securitisation and infrastructure investments took effect; the current consultation proposes further refinements to that framework.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and capital teams should review the consultation paper and consider submitting comments to MAS by 18 December 2026, particularly on eligibility tests, evidence requirements, capital calibrations and implementation timing.
• Firms should map current and planned infrastructure debt, infrastructure equity, infrastructure-fund and securitisation exposures against the proposed qualifying criteria, distinguishing assets that could benefit from lower charges from assets that would remain subject to existing treatment.
• Investment, risk and finance functions should assess whether existing due diligence, valuation, credit assessment, look-through analysis and documentation can evidence contractual revenues, demand-risk limitations, counterparty strength, tranche seniority, investment grade status, diversification, liquidity and simplicity, transparency and comparability.
• Firms should monitor amendments to MAS Notice 133 and Notice FHC-N133 and avoid reflecting proposed capital relief in regulatory capital planning, pricing or investment limits until the proposals are finalised and effective.
• Insurers may wish to assess whether they qualify for or could benefit from the Infrastructure Capability Development Grant and identify capability gaps in origination, underwriting, infrastructure valuation, credit analysis and ongoing monitoring.
• Governance teams should establish a process for monitoring the additional external credit assessment institutions, standardised disclosure templates, fund-manager declarations and assessment guidance that MAS may introduce.
• Groups with infrastructure investments held through funds or structured products should confirm whether the final treatment will permit look-through and should not assume that infrastructure-backed structured products qualify for infrastructure treatment rather than structured-product treatment.

What changed

This is a consultation and does not itself amend Notice 133 or impose new binding capital requirements. MAS is proposing lower capital charges for rated infrastructure debt that satisfies specified credit-quality and other qualifying criteria; for qualifying infrastructure equity and debt investments with risk mitigants such as long-term contractual or regulated revenues, limited demand-risk exposure and strong counterparties; and for senior investment-grade securitisation tranches meeting relevant simplicity, transparency and comparability criteria or specified diversification and liquidity...

Key dates

2019-08-01

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

2024-05-01

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

2025-02-24

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

2025-04-09

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

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-08

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

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-08

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

2026-08-03 Deadline

The consultation period for CP168 closed.

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-05-11

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

2026-06-08

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

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation.

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-05-11

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

2026-06-08

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

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation.

2026-10-30

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

2027-01-30 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-03 Deadline

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

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-08

CSSF consultation on proposed guidance was published.

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholder responses to the consultation.

2026-10-30

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

2027-01-30 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-03-04

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

2026-07-01

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

2026-08-12 Deadline

ESMA’s consultation period closed.

2026-10-29

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-29

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-03-04

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

2026-10-29

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-12-07 Deadline

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

2027-07-01 Deadline

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

2027-10-11 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

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

2026-12-07 Deadline

First phased requirements apply to investment firms and their clients for allocations and confirmations, including electronic, standardised, international-standard and machine-readable communications except during temporary technical disruptions.

2027-07-01 Deadline

Second phased implementation deadline under the amended settlement-discipline framework.

2027-10-11 Deadline

EU securities markets move from the standard T+2 settlement cycle to T+1; the final phased settlement-discipline requirements apply.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map every allocation, confirmation, matching and settlement-instruction process affected by the amended settlement-discipline RTS and identify manual, non-standardised or non-machine-readable steps.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards are available to the firm and its professional clients before 7 December 2026.
• Firms should consider implementing trade-date controls, internal cut-offs, automated alerts, escalation procedures and exception reporting to identify transactions at risk of missing the applicable allocation and confirmation deadline.
• Investment firms may wish to review client onboarding and contractual documentation to ensure that professional clients provide complete settlement details and use compatible communication channels and formats.
• Operations and technology teams should test end-to-end connectivity, message formats, reference data, settlement instructions, matching, foreign-exchange funding, securities lending, collateral and asset-servicing workflows across the entire trading and settlement ecosystem.
• Firms should assess readiness not only within their own organisation but also across brokers, custodians, clients, fund administrators, CSDs, settlement agents and other outsourced providers.
• Firms should establish a phased implementation plan covering the 7 December 2026, 1 July 2027 and 11 October 2027 milestones, with evidence of testing, issue remediation and management oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor further ESMA and CSSF supervisory communications because ESMA and national competent authorities have indicated that they will monitor compliance with the new obligations.

What changed

Amended settlement-discipline regulatory technical standards under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1229 introduce phased requirements supporting the EU T+1 transition. From 7 December 2026, investment firms and their clients must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards for allocations and confirmations, with machine-readable communication required except during temporary technical disruptions.

Key dates

2026-10-26

ASIC announced and made the interim stop order against the Murdoch Clarke Mortgage Fund PDS.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider suspending affected offers, issuances, sales, transfers and distribution activity and checking all intermediary and platform instructions against the terms of the interim order.
• Compliance teams may wish to conduct a line-by-line PDS review against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C, 1013D and 1013F, including whether all material information, fees and costs, risks and withdrawal terms are disclosed clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Fund managers should consider identifying and describing all actual, potential and permitted related-party transactions, including the parties involved, nature of the arrangements, decision-making controls, remuneration and associated conflicts.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile every fee, cost, spread, margin, related-party charge and indirect cost in the PDS with constitutions, investment management agreements, responsible-entity arrangements, financial statements and actual operating practice.
• Managers should consider presenting lending, property-security, interest-only, principal-repayment, valuation, concentration, liquidity, default, impairment and loss risks in a prominent and investor-comprehensible manner rather than relying on generic risk wording.
• Firms should consider prominently distinguishing the Fund's usual withdrawal processing practice from the responsible entity's legal discretion and maximum permitted timeframe, including any suspension, gate, queue, notice, liquidity or repayment conditions.
• Distributors and advisers may wish to review current product lists, advice templates, research ratings and retail communications to ensure they do not continue promoting or recommending the Fund while the order is in force.
• Private credit managers should consider reviewing comparable PDSs and target market determinations proactively, given ASIC's stated surveillance focus and the recent pattern of interim intervention followed by required disclosure remediation.

What changed

The interim order immediately halts the relevant fundraising and secondary dealing activities under the Fund's PDS; it is not a new generally applicable rule or a final finding of contravention. ASIC identified concerns that the PDS fails to disclose related-party transactions, inadequately explains fees and costs, provides insufficient or unclear risk information, and does not adequately and prominently explain withdrawals. ASIC may make a final stop order if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner, after Murdoch Clarke has an opportunity to make submissions.

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

2026-10-22

FCA published CP26/37 and opened the consultation.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for consultation responses.

2027-06-30

End of the first half of 2027, during which the FCA expects to publish final regulatory requirements; the exact publication date is not specified.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the consultation proposals against their current SMF population, including whether SMF18, SMF22 or the existing SMF7 definition is used and how responsibilities would be reallocated.
• Dual-regulated and Enhanced firms should review whether SMF5 and SMF10 to SMF15 appointments would move from prior approval to notification, while considering the continuing need for documented fitness and propriety assessments.
• Compliance teams may wish to model whether the proposed £200 million, £100 billion, £75 million and £750 million Enhanced thresholds would change the firm's classification, including group-level and three-year rolling-average calculations.
• Firms should plan to preserve accurate internal Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Maps even if routine FCA submissions are removed.
• Firms should review Prescribed Responsibility allocations and identify the impact of removing nine responsibilities, including the proposed retention of A, D, Z and J-3.
• Certification-function inventories, annual certification processes, regulatory-reference procedures and Directory reporting should be mapped so that transition arrangements can be implemented if the proposals are finalised; firms should not discontinue current obligations before final rules and commencement.
• Conduct and HR teams should assess changes to training, staff notifications, disciplinary classifications, appeal processes and breach-reporting workflows, distinguishing staff subject only to Individual Conduct Rules from those also subject to Senior Manager Conduct Rules.
• Firms should retain processes for prompt notification of matters of regulatory significance under Principle 11, SUP 15 and SUP 10C, because the consultation does not remove those obligations.

What changed

The FCA proposes to make SMF5 (Head of Internal Audit) and SMF10 to SMF15 functions notified rather than subject to prior approval at specified dual-regulated and Enhanced firms. It proposes to remove SMF18 (Other Overall Responsibility) and SMF22 (Local Responsibility), narrow SMF7 (Group Entity Senior Manager), and retain SMF24 (Chief Operations Function) as a pre-approved function.

Key dates

2026-10-22

The FCA and PRA published parallel Phase 2 SM&CR consultations.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the FCA and PRA SM&CR Phase 2 consultations.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the FCA consultation CP26/37 and PRA consultation CP14/26 and consider submitting responses by 22 January 2027.
• Firms should continue operating existing SM&CR approval, certification, Directory, Conduct Rule and responsibility-mapping processes unless and until final rules and any required legislation take effect.
• Firms may wish to map current Senior Management Functions and identify Chief Actuary, Risk Committee Chair and Audit Committee Chair roles that could move from pre-approval to notification, while retaining evidence of fitness, propriety, competence and suitability assessments.
• Compliance teams should identify employees who could fall outside the proposed Certification Regime and assess how internal competence, performance, disciplinary and conduct controls would operate without annual regulatory certification.
• Firms may wish to model the effect of the proposed Enhanced-regime threshold increases on their classification, governance documentation, prescribed responsibilities and approval processes.
• Firms should review Conduct Rule breach-reporting workflows and training curricula, but should not apply a higher reporting threshold or reduced training scope until the relevant final rules are published and effective.
• Governance teams may wish to assess the proposed removal of ongoing Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Map submissions and determine what internal records will still be needed to demonstrate clear accountability.
• Firms with cryptoasset activities or planned authorisation may wish to consider the interaction between these proposals, the FCA's modification-by-consent approach for cryptoasset firms and the wider cryptoasset perimeter work.

What changed

The regulators propose removing pre-approval for a range of functions, including Chief Actuaries and Chairs of Risk and Audit Committees, with firms instead notifying the regulators and retaining responsibility for fitness and propriety. Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer and Chair roles would generally remain subject to regulatory pre-approval, while regulators could require pre-approval for otherwise notified roles in high-risk cases.

Key dates

2019-01-01

In 2019, Dawkins sold Vector Wealth to a director who had previously been disqualified and who subsequently described himself as the firm's CEO; the FCA found that Dawkins falsely represented that he remained in control.

2020-09-22

Kadir Kanizi was appointed as a director of Vector Wealth.

2021-01-01

The FCA's permanent restriction on marketing speculative illiquid securities, including relevant mini-bonds and loan notes, to retail investors took effect, subject to applicable high-net-worth and sophisticated-investor exemptions.

2021-09-06

The FCA approved Kadir Kanizi for his senior management role at Vector Wealth.

2025-01-28

Vector Wealth's FCA authorisation ended.

2026-10-21

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning Dawkins and Kanizi.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review ownership, control and governance records following any acquisition or disposal, verify that the person exercising actual control is accurately disclosed to the FCA and assess whether a change-in-control notification under FSMA sections 178 to 191 was required.
• Firms should consider testing that directors, controllers and senior managers meet the applicable fit-and-proper standards and that no disqualified person is exercising management or operational control indirectly or through nominee arrangements.
• Firms that issue, approve or distribute mini-bond, loan-note or similar promotions should consider a product-level assessment of whether the instrument is a speculative illiquid security and whether the promotion is prohibited or qualifies for a valid exemption under the FCA rules.
• Financial promotion approval processes should be reviewed to ensure that risk warnings are prominent, balanced and comprehensible, and are not undermined by claims suggesting fixed returns, simplicity, safety or FCA endorsement.
• Where high-net-worth or sophisticated-investor exemptions are used, firms should consider verifying the relevant declaration and process before providing access to the promotion, rather than treating a generic self-certification as evidence that all conduct and disclosure obligations have been satisfied.
• Firms should consider documenting who reviewed the promotion, the evidence supporting the target market and exemption, the underlying use of investor funds, liquidity and default risks, and the rationale for approving the communication.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to review escalation, oversight and record-keeping arrangements for unregulated investment activity conducted alongside regulated business, particularly where the firm's FCA authorisation could give investors a misleading impression of product safety or compensation protection.
• Firms should consider confirming that senior managers understand their individual accountability for consumer communications and risk oversight, and may wish to include high-risk investment promotions in conduct monitoring and Consumer Duty assessments where relevant.

What changed

This is a final enforcement action rather than a new rule or industry-wide implementation deadline. It applies the existing prohibition in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on unauthorised financial promotions, the FCA's financial promotion rules in COBS 4, including the restrictions applying to speculative illiquid securities, and the change-in-control notification regime under sections 178 to 191 of FSMA.

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

2026-09-30

The SEC issued the proposed rule, Release Nos. 33-11444, 34-106534, and IC-36351; this is the underlying proposal date, not an effective date for new obligations.

2026-10-05

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63388.

2026-10-20

The SEC published a correction replacing the DATES section and confirming the comment deadline.

2026-12-04 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to calendar December 4, 2026 as the deadline for submitting comments to File No. S7-2026-34 and coordinate comments across legal, fund governance, distribution, operations, and investor-relations functions.
• Affected fund sponsors should consider assessing whether monthly or otherwise revised repurchase intervals, delayed initial repurchase offers, or more frequent discretionary repurchases would better align with portfolio liquidity and investor-liquidity expectations if the proposal is adopted.
• Registered closed-end funds and BDCs considering multiple share classes should consider mapping proposed Rule 18f-3 and Rule 17d-3 conditions against existing exemptive orders, board procedures, fee arrangements, allocation methodologies, distribution agreements, and conflict controls.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate the anticipated written multiple-share-class plan, board approval requirements, class-level expense allocation, asset-based distribution and service-fee arrangements, and related disclosure controls.
• Operations and disclosure teams should consider a gap analysis for proposed changes to Form N-2, Form N-CEN, Form N-23c-3, shareholder reports, prospectus legends, expense examples, NAV and repurchase processing, and investor communications.
• Firms should continue treating the current Investment Company Act rules and existing exemptive orders as controlling until any final rule becomes effective and applicable transition or rescission provisions are issued.

What changed

The October 20, 2026 Federal Register correction replaces the prior DATES text in the October 5 proposal and expressly states that the release was published on October 5, 2026 and that comments must be received by December 4, 2026. The underlying proposal would amend Investment Company Act Rules 23c-3, 18f-3, and 17d-3 and related forms and rules to modernize interval-fund repurchase programs, including potentially allowing a first repurchase offer to be deferred for up to two years, monthly repurchase intervals, annual discretionary repurchases, and deduction of deferred sales loads from...

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

2021-05-01

Shield Master Fund commenced operation; ASIC found that some SOAs nevertheless suggested Shield had generated returns or outperformed alternatives since 2016.

2023-09-18

Singh became authorised by MWL Financial Services.

2024-02-01

ASIC halted new offers of Shield investments through interim stop orders on four product disclosure statements.

2024-06-01

ASIC took action to secure assets held within Shield for the potential benefit of investors.

2024-12-23

Singh ceased being authorised by MWL.

2025-01-13

Singh became an authorised representative of Interprac Financial Planning.

2025-08-25

ASIC cancelled MWL’s Australian financial services licence and banned MWL director Nicholas Maikousis.

2025-11-21

Cor Cordis liquidators were appointed to MWL.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review advice files involving rollovers or switches of superannuation into high-risk, illiquid or newly established products, including whether the advice demonstrated the client’s objectives, financial situation, needs, risk tolerance, diversification and capacity to bear loss.
• Firms should consider testing Statements of Advice for unsupported historical-performance claims, back-cast comparisons, projections, graphs and descriptions that could imply a product existed or achieved returns before its actual commencement date.
• Licensees may wish to reassess approved-product-list governance, including independent product due diligence, evidence of product track record, liquidity and valuation risk, investment-class risk ratings, concentration limits and escalation where a product is proposed for a substantial proportion of retirement savings.
• Compliance teams should consider targeted surveillance of advice involving large superannuation rollovers, replacement products, high-growth allocations and advisers or referral channels associated with MWL, Shield or similar schemes.
• Firms should review conflicts and remuneration controls, including referral arrangements, lead-generator relationships, bonuses, volume incentives and disclosures in Financial Services Guides and Statements of Advice.
• Licensees may wish to verify adviser status on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register and ensure that a banned person cannot provide financial services, control a financial services business or perform functions involved in carrying on such a business during the prohibition period.
• Affected consumers and firms handling complaints should consider preserving advice records, product research, call recordings, referral documentation and transaction evidence, and directing eligible consumer complaints to AFCA while recognising that MWL remains an AFCA member.
• Superannuation trustees and product issuers may wish to assess whether comparable products, distribution models or adviser incentives create risks of misleading disclosure, unsuitable concentration or advice that is not in members’ best interests.

What changed

This is a final administrative banning decision against an individual rather than a new generally applicable rule. Singh is prohibited from providing financial services for four years and the banning order has been recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register. ASIC found conduct inconsistent with the best-interests duty, the appropriateness obligation and prohibitions on false or materially misleading representations: approximately 75% of certain clients’ rolled-over superannuation was recommended for investment in Shield’s Growth or High Growth Class despite the product being high...

Key dates

2026-10-16

ESMA publishes the final revised Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols used between investment firms and their professional clients.

2026-12-07 Deadline

First regulatory milestone: the new allocation and confirmation requirements apply, including mandatory electronic, standardised and machine-readable communication methods, subject to temporary technical-disruption exceptions.

2027-10-11 Deadline

EU securities markets move from T+2 to T+1 settlement; the final phase of the amended settlement-discipline implementation is expected to apply, including settlement-layer process and CSD functionality changes.

Suggested considerations

• Map the firm's transactions, clients, counterparties and settlement venues against CSDR Article 5(2), including the scope for transferable securities traded on an EU trading venue and settling in an EU-registered CSD.
• Assess whether the firm is directly subject to the amended RTS on Settlement Discipline or must implement equivalent controls contractually or operationally for clients and counterparties.
• Complete a gap assessment of allocation and confirmation workflows against the 7 December 2026 requirements for electronic, standardised, international and machine-readable communications.
• Replace manual, oral, email-based or non-machine-readable processes where they are not justified by a temporary technical disruption, and document the disruption, compensating controls, duration and remediation.
• Configure systems to support continuous same-day processing and, taking account of the industry roadmap, completion of allocations and confirmations no later than 23:00 CET on trade date.
• Validate the capture and exchange of critical static data, including place of settlement, BIC, ISIN, MIC and standing settlement instruction data, and establish controls over data quality and versioning.
• Test end-to-end processing with investment firms, professional clients, custodians, brokers, clearing members, CSDs, settlement systems, FX providers and technology vendors rather than testing only internal systems.
• Review client and counterparty agreements, service descriptions, operating memoranda and escalation procedures for the compressed T+1 timetable and cross-border time-zone dependencies.

What changed

The revised ESMA Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols clarify how investment firms and their professional clients must meet the allocation and confirmation requirements in the amended RTS on Settlement Discipline. From 7 December 2026, firms must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards, with machine-readable communication required except during temporary technical disruptions.

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

2025-12-08

FCA opened DP25/3, Expanding consumer access to investments.

2026-03-06

FCA closed the DP25/3 feedback period.

2026-10-16

FCA published FS26/3, summarising feedback and setting out next steps.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the FCA's planned review of financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments and assess whether current product classifications and promotional controls would remain defensible if similar-risk products are brought into a more consistent regime.
• Firms may wish to inventory customer-facing risk information for mainstream investments and identify disclosures, digital journeys and governance processes that could require revision following the FCA's planned early-2027 consultation.
• Platform operators and distributors may wish to review appropriateness-testing journeys, including customer understanding, repeat transactions, exemptions, escalation and recordkeeping, in anticipation of FCA stakeholder engagement during 2027.
• Manufacturers and distributors of model portfolio services may wish to test product governance, target-market definitions, distribution strategy, cost and risk disclosures, and evidence of good consumer outcomes before the FCA publishes its multi-firm review findings in Q1 2027.
• Firms may wish to review whether digital interfaces, trading-app functionality, gamification features and other friction-reducing design choices support informed decision-making and remain consistent with Consumer Duty outcomes.
• Industry participants may wish to engage with the FCA's future consultations and stakeholder work, while avoiding treating FS26/3 as permission to relax existing financial-promotion, suitability, appropriateness or consumer-protection controls.

What changed

FS26/3 does not introduce new requirements, thresholds or effective dates for firms. The FCA will review whether financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments treat products with similar risks consistently; it plans to consult in early 2027 on changes to rules and guidance concerning risk information for mainstream investments; and it will review how appropriateness assessments operate in practice, including the merits of alternative models, with stakeholder engagement planned for 2027.

Key dates

2025-11-07

The FCA published its multi-firm review of CFD providers’ provision of price and value, identifying concerns including narrow fair value assessments, opaque overnight funding charges and charges on matched long and short positions.

2026-05-01

The FCA surveyed 81 CFD firms about changes made or planned after the November 2025 review; the source identifies May 2026 but does not specify an exact day.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to document a comprehensive fair value assessment covering spreads, commissions, overnight funding, ancillary fees, cash-balance interest and all other amounts charged to consumer accounts, rather than focusing primarily on execution costs.
• Firms should consider testing whether overnight funding rates are reasonable against prevailing reference or base rates, relevant UK-regulated peers, the underlying asset class and the benefits delivered, with documented rationale for material outliers and wide long-versus-short spreads.
• Firms may wish to assess separately the treatment of matched or hedged positions, including whether applying the full funding spread to both legs is proportionate where there is no net market exposure and whether any reduced-margin or promotional arrangements encourage clients to maintain costly open positions.
• Firms should consider reviewing client-facing disclosures at each relevant stage of the journey, including onboarding, product pages, deal tickets and account interfaces, and explaining the calculation, rate, frequency, leverage effect and potential cumulative impact of overnight charges in accessible language.
• Firms may wish to present projected overnight costs using an annualised percentage measure alongside daily or monetary charges, while retaining clear explanations that actual costs may vary.
• Appropriateness and target-market processes should be reviewed for robustness, including any income thresholds, enhanced scrutiny, vulnerability monitoring and escalation arrangements introduced after the November 2025 review.
• Firms should consider whether interest paid on client cash or margin balances, and the absence of such interest, has been properly assessed as part of the overall price and value outcome.
• Management information may need to evidence the review of charges, peer comparisons, complaints, customer understanding, vulnerable-client outcomes and remediation decisions because the FCA states it will follow up individually where concerns remain.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and good-and-poor-practice feedback, not a new binding rule or implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to assess all costs and charges in their fair value assessments, use relevant UK-regulated peer comparisons, consider consumer outcomes rather than treating fair value as a compliance exercise, and review whether overnight funding rates are reasonable in light of prevailing base rates, peer pricing and the benefits provided.

Key dates

2026-06-10

The FSB published the consultation report proposing 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption.

2026-07-22

The FSB consultation closed; approximately 160 responses were received.

2026-10-15

The FSB published the overview of consultation responses and the final report containing the 12 sound practices.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider mapping existing AI inventories, model-risk controls, operational-resilience arrangements, cyber controls, outsourcing registers, and board reporting against all 12 FSB practices.
• Compliance teams may wish to introduce or validate a documented, risk-based materiality assessment for each AI use case at inception and throughout its lifecycle, including uses embedded in products or obtained from vendors.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether AI adoption is aligned with business strategy, risk appetite, accountability structures, and existing risk-management frameworks.
• Firms using generative or agentic AI should consider defining permitted actions, autonomy limits, escalation paths, human-approval triggers, monitoring thresholds, and tested stop or safe-interruption procedures.
• Firms should consider retaining records sufficient to identify the AI system, data, model or vendor, intended purpose, materiality assessment, testing, approvals, monitoring results, changes, incidents, and reconstructed decisions or actions.
• Procurement and third-party-risk teams may wish to assess AI providers for performance, transparency, data quality, supply-chain exposure, concentration risk, exit options, resilience, and business-continuity arrangements.
• Technology and operational-resilience teams should consider adding AI-specific cyber and ICT scenarios to testing and exercises, including model manipulation, data poisoning, prompt or agent compromise, erroneous autonomous actions, provider outage, and loss of vendor access.
• Firms should consider reviewing the interaction between the FSB practices and binding local requirements, including the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act, EU AI Act, sectoral outsourcing rules, model-risk requirements, data-protection law, and senior-management accountability regimes.

What changed

The final framework retains 12 practices covering board and senior-management oversight, governance and accountability, AI risk integration and documentation, organisational adaptability, materiality assessment, model selection, data governance, explainability and transparency, performance management, human oversight, cyber and ICT risk, and third-party AI risk.

Key dates

2026-10-15

FSB published the final report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider inventorying all material AI use cases, including internally developed tools, vendor-provided models, embedded productivity tools, generative AI and agentic or multi-agent systems, with ownership, purpose, data sources, model dependencies and deployment status recorded.
• Compliance teams may wish to map each use case to a documented materiality and risk classification performed at inception and refreshed after material model, data, vendor, scope or operating-environment changes.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether AI governance, risk appetite statements, delegated authorities and management information clearly cover autonomous actions, prohibited uses, escalation thresholds and accountability for AI-supported decisions.
• Firms should consider integrating AI-specific controls into existing model risk management, operational-risk, ICT-risk, cybersecurity, outsourcing and business-continuity frameworks rather than creating disconnected governance.
• Model and technology teams may wish to maintain evidence of data provenance, data quality, testing, validation, performance metrics, drift monitoring, incident handling, explainability assessments and compensating controls where explainability is limited.
• For higher-risk or autonomous use cases, firms should consider mandatory human approval triggers, bounded permissions, segregation of duties, real-time or near-real-time monitoring, complete audit trails, emergency stop or rollback capability and periodic reassessment of whether human oversight remains effective.
• Procurement and third-party-risk functions should consider enhancing due diligence and contracts for AI providers to address model performance, transparency, training and input data, subcontracting, security, audit access, incident notification, portability, exit planning, concentration risk and service continuity.
• Cybersecurity teams should consider adding AI-enabled attacks, prompt injection, data poisoning, model manipulation, deepfakes, automated exploitation and misuse of AI-assisted coding or defensive tools to threat assessments, testing and exercises.

What changed

The FSB replaced its June 2026 consultation with a final framework of 12 proportionate sound practices. The practices require firms to align AI adoption with business strategy and risk appetite; define accountability; incorporate AI risks into enterprise risk management; document AI use and materiality assessments; select models according to business, technical and risk requirements; govern data quality and security; address explainability and stakeholder transparency; test and monitor performance; apply human oversight proportionate to autonomy, complexity, risk and explainability; manage...

Key dates

2026-10-09

SEC issued the proposed amendments to Investment Company Act Rule 17a-7, Release No. IC-36358, File No. S7-2026-36.

2026-10-15

Proposed rule published in the Federal Register; the 60-day public-comment period begins.

2026-12-14 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory current and potential cross trades by asset class and valuation level, distinguishing Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 positions and identifying fixed-income portfolios that could become eligible.
• Advisers may wish to design a documented pre-trade best-interest process for each participating registered fund, including consideration of open-market alternatives, alternative securities, and the option not to trade.
• Funds and advisers may wish to assess pricing-source governance, including unaffiliated-source due diligence, periodic reasonableness reviews, NAV-pricing consistency, and controls preventing use of amortized-cost values.
• CCOs may wish to map quarterly review, annual back-testing, subsequent-sale analysis, escalation, and reporting responsibilities across fund and adviser compliance functions.
• Boards and counsel may wish to assess amendments to Rule 38a-1 policies, board reporting, and governance materials in light of the proposed shift away from board-adopted Rule 17a-7 procedures.
• Operations and regulatory-reporting teams may wish to map internal asset classifications to Form N-PORT Item B.12 and Form N-MFP Item A.23, including controls for the preceding-12-month activity test and reconciliation of cross-trade and total purchases and sales.
• Records-management teams may wish to evaluate systems capable of retaining trade records, CCO review materials, and board reports for six years.
• Interested parties may wish to submit comments by the Federal Register deadline, addressing the 79 specific requests for comment, including Level 3 eligibility, bid-side NAV pricing, review frequency, scaling, and public-reporting impacts.

What changed

Eligible securities would expand from generally Level 1 securities with readily available market quotations to securities valued using inputs that are observable directly or indirectly, provided Level 2 inputs are the lowest level of inputs significant to measurement; Level 3 securities would remain excluded. The proposed independent current market price would be either the value used in the fund’s next NAV calculation on the trade date or a price the adviser reasonably determines represents current market value using one or more unaffiliated pricing sources, subject to periodic review.

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.