Reporting & Disclosure

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2026-11-04

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

2026-11-04

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

2026-11-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-06

EBA publishes its policy statement on the post-consultation direction of the supervisory reporting simplification package.

2026-12-01

EBA is expected to publish the final report on the draft ITS package; the precise publication date was not specified.

2026-12-31

EBA expects to publish guidance on designing and making supervisory and resolution data requests by the end of 2026; the precise date was not specified.

2027-01-01

Firms should take into account the EBA consideration on application of the FRTB from this date during the transition.

2027-01-01

The EU-wide public repository of supervisory and resolution data requests is expected to become operational during Q1 2027; the precise date was not specified.

2027-06-30

The EBA expects to present further proposals on reporting change management in the first half of 2027; the precise date was not specified.

2027-12-01 Deadline

First reference date for the new supervisory reporting requirements, subject to finalisation, Commission adoption and the precise legal text; the announcement specifies December 2027 but not a day.

2028-12-01 Deadline

Expected reference period for deferred liquidity, asset-encumbrance, supervisory-benchmarking and ESG reporting changes; the announcement specifies December 2028 but not a day.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should continue submitting currently applicable supervisory reporting templates until the revised ITS and technical package are legally adopted and applicable, rather than treating the announced simplifications as immediately effective.
• Compliance and regulatory-reporting teams may wish to preserve existing reporting processes for operational-risk losses while removing or suppressing only data affected by the new granular operational-risk taxonomy, consistently with transition instructions.
• Institutions participating in credit-risk or IFRS 9 benchmarking should continue using the 2026 ITS on supervisory benchmarking reporting during the transition and confirm whether they remain within the relevant benchmarking population.
• Firms should assess the impact of the 1 January 2027 FRTB implementation position on reporting, capital, data lineage and systems, including whether existing interpretations need to be revised once the EBA consideration is final.
• Reporting owners should maintain separate implementation workstreams for requirements expected from December 2027 and deferred areas expected from December 2028, including liquidity, asset encumbrance, benchmarking and ESG reporting.
• Firms should monitor the EBA final ITS report in December 2026, the Commission adoption process and the technical package expected in early 2027, including the data point model, taxonomies and validation rules.
• Institutions may wish to inventory national and supervisory data requests and identify duplicative submissions in anticipation of the EBA data-request guidance and EU-wide repository.
• Change-management plans should account for possible revisions to templates, frequencies, thresholds, validation rules, reporting ownership and consolidated-level data aggregation once the final technical package is available.

What changed

The final package, scheduled for publication in December 2026, will further simplify reporting templates, reduce collateral, stress-testing and ESG data, remove selected reporting thresholds, reduce reporting frequencies and align reporting more closely with disclosure requirements. Credit-risk and IFRS 9 benchmarking reporting will be integrated into the supervisory reporting framework, with streamlined IFRS 9 requirements and greater emphasis on consolidated-level reporting.

Key dates

2024-06-30

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

2024-12-30

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

2026-11-06

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

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

2026-11-04

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

2025-08-01

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-01-19

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

2026-11-04

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

2026-12-09 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-01-19

The Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024 regime and the PRM sourcebook came into force, replacing the UK Prospectus Regulation framework for relevant new activity.

2026-07-31

The FCA’s PRM Clarificatory Amendments Instrument 2026 came into force, including amendments to PRM 1.4.12R and PRM 10.1.9R.

2026-11-04

GC26/8 consultation opened and the FCA published Primary Market Bulletin No. 67.

2026-12-09 Deadline

Deadline for comments on the proposed amendments and revocations.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review the proposed amendments to TN 602.5 and TN 605.5 and consider submitting comments to the FCA at [email protected] by 9 December 2026.
• Issuers and advisers should reassess employee and director share-scheme prospectus-exemption analyses under PRM 1.4.12R, including whether any onward-transfer purpose could make the exemption unavailable.
• Issuers, arrangers and counsel should update precedent opinions, prospectus checklists and supplementary-prospectus procedures to use the PRM 10.1.9R “manifestly the same” formulation rather than relying on the former “fungible” wording.
• Firms should identify references to UKLA/TN/103.1 and PN 902.4 in listing manuals, training, transaction checklists and legal memoranda, and determine whether those references should be removed or replaced with current UKLR, PRM or FCA website material.
• Teams handling legacy prospectuses should distinguish the new PRM framework from saving provisions for prospectuses approved under the former UK Prospectus Regulation, including the transitional provisions in regulation 48 of the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the FCA’s final decision and the Knowledge Base after the consultation closes before treating the proposed deletions or amended notes as final guidance.

What changed

The FCA proposes to amend Primary Market/TN/602.5 so that its guidance on the prospectus exemption for securities offered, allotted or to be allotted to existing or former directors or employees refers to PRM 1.4.12(2)(c). The related PRM 1.4.12R amendment is intended to ensure that the exemption is used only for legitimate incentive and employee share schemes and is unavailable where the purpose is subsequent transfer rather than a genuine employee or director scheme.

Key dates

2025-11-26

FINMA published its ex-post evaluation of Circular 2019/2, identifying potential improvements to proportionality and validation requirements and announcing a planned partial revision.

2026-11-04

FINMA launched the consultation on the partial revision of Circular 2019/2.

2027-01-15 Deadline

The FINMA consultation period closes; consultation responses should be submitted by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Banks should review the consultation package and consider submitting comments to FINMA by 15 January 2027, particularly on proportionality, validation burden, earnings-risk metrics and implementation timing.
• Risk and finance teams should perform an impact assessment using the Basel Committee’s July 2024 recalibrated shock methodology, including the potential effect of 25-basis-point rounding and updated historical calibration data.
• Banks should map current interest-rate-risk models, independent validation procedures and model governance against the expected clarification of minimum validation requirements.
• Compliance teams may wish to reassess whether the institution’s proportionality framework appropriately differentiates requirements by size, business model, complexity and risk profile, while retaining evidence supporting those judgments.
• Treasury and risk functions should assess whether existing interest-rate-risk reporting captures both economic-value effects and effects on net interest income or other relevant revenue measures.
• Governance bodies should record the consultation assessment, scenario-analysis results, model changes and any decision to submit industry comments, while continuing to apply the currently effective Circular 2019/2 until a final revision enters into force.

What changed

The proposed revision would update the standardised interest-rate shock scenarios used to measure interest-rate risk in the banking book, reflecting the Basel Committee’s July 2024 recalibration. The Basel recalibration uses updated historical data, a 99.9th-percentile shock-factor methodology and shock values rounded to 25 basis points; the Basel standard contemplated implementation from 1 January 2026, but the Swiss implementation timeline will depend on FINMA’s final circular.

Key dates

2020-04-27

NCUA published the interim final rule establishing the PPP risk-weighting, PPP Loan Facility total-asset exclusion, and commercial-loan treatment.

2022-01-01

NCUA’s 2015 risk-based capital final rule became effective; the December 2021 final rule had already carried forward the relevant PPP treatment into the then-current capital adequacy framework.

2026-11-04

The final rule adopting the April 27, 2020 IFR without change becomes effective and is published at 91 FR 69493.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that risk-based capital reporting continues to assign a 0 percent risk weight only to loans meeting the applicable SBA PPP eligibility and coverage criteria.
• Credit unions that pledged PPP loans to the Federal Reserve PPP Loan Facility may wish to verify that the loans remain appropriately identified and excluded from total assets solely for the net worth ratio calculation under 12 CFR 702.2.
• Regulatory reporting and finance teams may wish to reconcile PPP-loan classifications across the general ledger, capital calculations, Call Report processes, and supporting documentation.
• Lending compliance teams may wish to confirm that qualifying PPP loans are not included as commercial loans for purposes of 12 CFR part 723, while other applicable lending, documentation, servicing, SBA-guarantee, and record-retention requirements remain separately addressed.
• Credit unions may wish to retain evidence supporting SBA guarantees, facility pledges, non-recourse funding, and the basis for any regulatory capital exclusions, particularly where legacy PPP balances remain on the balance sheet.
• Policy owners may wish to update regulatory inventories to identify the 2026 rule as a finalization of the 2020 IFR rather than as a new operational requirement.

What changed

Under 12 CFR part 702, covered loans issued under the SBA Paycheck Protection Program continue to receive a 0 percent risk weight for risk-based capital purposes. PPP loans pledged as collateral for a non-recourse borrowing through the Federal Reserve’s PPP Loan Facility continue to be excluded from total assets when calculating the net worth ratio under 12 CFR 702.2. Under 12 CFR part 723, PPP loans remain excluded from the definition of commercial loans.

Key dates

2026-11-04

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 69642.

2027-01-04 Deadline

Comments on RIN 3064-AG35 must be received by the FDIC.

2029-10-01

First proposed inflation-based adjustment to the section 360.9 covered-institution and larger-covered-institution thresholds.

Suggested considerations

• Affected banks should assess whether they meet the proposed covered-institution or larger-covered-institution thresholds using Call Report definitions and current deposit-account and asset data.
• Current part 370 institutions should map existing output files and deposit-account records against the 26 proposed mandatory fields in 12 CFR part 360 appendices C through G, identifying gaps in account title, ownership, relationship, beneficiary, domestic-versus-foreign, and other required data.
• Part 370 institutions should evaluate the effect of replacing their own deposit-insurance calculation systems with FDIC-calculation reliance, while preserving or redeveloping the provisional-hold capabilities required by proposed section 360.9.
• Larger covered institutions should inventory transactional accounts subject to the proposed account-holder contractual or disclosure requirement and determine which mortgage-servicer, fiduciary, real-estate, IOLTA, employee-benefit-plan, and trust-related accounts may be excluded.
• Compliance, operations, legal, and technology teams should review the proposed six-month implementation period for general requirements and 18-month period for provisional-hold requirements for institutions that are larger covered institutions on the final rule's effective date.
• Banks approaching the thresholds should establish monitoring for two consecutive quarters, the proposed 12-month implementation period after becoming a larger covered institution, and the proposed release mechanism after three consecutive quarters below the relevant threshold.
• Institutions should consider whether to submit comments by January 4, 2027, particularly on field-level data requirements, provisional-hold redevelopment, account-holder disclosures, transition timing, exemptions, and the CPI-W indexing methodology.
• Industry commentary indicates that the proposal is being read primarily as a burden-reduction measure for large banks, with estimated annual savings of approximately $33 million offset by approximately $14 million in transition costs; firms should nevertheless account for operational work associated with standardized data and provisional holds.

What changed

Proposed revised 12 CFR 360.9 would apply to insured depository institutions with at least $2 billion in deposits and either at least 250,000 deposit accounts or at least $20 billion in total assets, regardless of deposit-account count. A new category of larger covered institution would include institutions with at least $2 billion in deposits and two million or more deposit accounts. Part 370 institutions would generally become larger covered institutions under section 360.9, and would no longer need to operate systems capable of calculating deposit-insurance coverage themselves.

Key dates

2026-11-02

WBF amended Annex 2 of the Ordinance of 25 May 2005 on Measures against Sudan (SR 946.231.18), modifying three individual entries.

2026-11-03 Deadline

The amended Sudan sanctions measures enter into force at 23:00 Swiss time; affected financial intermediaries must apply the relevant prohibitions, freeze assets and report affected relationships and blocked assets as required by the ordinance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should consider updating sanctions-screening data, including aliases and identifying information, from SESAM and the amended Annex 2 before the 23:00 effective time on 3 November 2026.
• Firms should consider screening customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, payment beneficiaries, securities positions and existing business relationships against all three modified entries, including historical and transliterated names where relevant.
• Where a potential match is identified, firms should consider applying the Article 2 financial-sanctions restrictions, preventing further availability of assets or economic resources, preserving relevant records and escalating the case for false-positive resolution and sanctions governance review.
• Firms should consider notifying SECO of affected business relationships and blocked assets in accordance with SR 946.231.18 and maintaining evidence of the decision, controls applied and notification submitted.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether a sanctions hit or related transaction creates additional money-laundering concerns requiring enhanced inquiries under Article 6 GwG and, if suspicions cannot be dispelled, an immediate Article 9 GwG report to the Money Laundering Reporting Office.
• Firms with cross-border operations should consider separately assessing whether the modified persons are also subject to EU, UK, US or other sanctions regimes, because the Swiss listing and any foreign restrictions may differ in scope and ownership or control consequences.
• Firms should consider validating batch-screening, real-time payment-screening, case-management and alert-escalation controls after the SESAM update, given the short notice between publication and effectiveness.

What changed

Three individual entries in Annex 2 were modified; the update is implemented through the Swiss SESAM sanctions database. The amended listings are subject to the financial sanctions in Article 2 paragraph 1 of SR 946.231.18, including the freezing of assets and economic resources and the prohibition on directly or indirectly making assets or economic resources available to listed persons. The relevant travel-ban provisions under Article 4 paragraph 1 also apply. Financial intermediaries must report affected business relationships and blocked assets to SECO.

Key dates

2018-08-03

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

2020-05-12

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

2020-12-07

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

2022-05-11

iSignthis changed its name to Southern Cross Payments Ltd.

2022-11-04

Southern Cross Payments Ltd was delisted from the ASX.

2024-06-21

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

2025-08-08

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

2025-09-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2025-11-05

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

2026-01-16

FCA consultation closed.

2026-10-21

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

2026-11-02

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

2026-12-05 Deadline

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

2026-12-31 Deadline

Temporary Intragroup Exemption Regime expires.

2027-01-01 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2026-12-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the Guided Retirement policy consultation.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2027-02-01

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

2027-06-24

FCA authorisation gateway opens for ESG rating providers.

2027-07-31 Deadline

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

2027-08-31 Deadline

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

2028-06-29 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-02

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

2026-10-01

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

2027-02-16

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

2027-03-03

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-07

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

2026-10-14

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

2026-10-22

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

2026-10-26

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

2026-10-28

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

2027-01-22 Deadline

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

2027-02-07 Deadline

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

2031-07-01

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

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

2023-12-13

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

2026-10-30

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

2026-12-31 Deadline

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

2027-06-30 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-30

FDIC Board unanimously approved the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by notational vote.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should obtain and review the complete NPRM, including proposed amendments, definitions, scope thresholds, transition provisions, and the Federal Register comment deadline, because the bulletin itself contains only a high-level announcement.
• Firms should map each insured depository institution against the current applicability criteria in 12 CFR part 370 and 12 CFR 360.9, documenting deposit-account counts, domestic deposits, total assets, existing exemptions, certifications, and any voluntary compliance elections.
• Affected institutions should inventory overlapping deposit-insurance determination, depositor-record, provisional-hold, data-format, and reporting capabilities to identify systems that could potentially be consolidated if the proposal is finalized.
• Technology, operations, deposit administration, legal, resolution-planning, and third-party-risk teams should assess whether current data lineage, account ownership and capacity coding, reconciliation, testing, and FDIC access processes would satisfy a revised standardized-record framework.
• Firms should consider submitting comments on the operational feasibility, treatment of affiliates and mergers, transition periods, testing expectations, treatment of custodial and pass-through accounts, and whether any proposed relief would create gaps in failure-day data availability.
• Institutions should continue complying with currently effective 12 CFR part 370 and 12 CFR 360.9 requirements until a final rule becomes effective and any applicable transition period expires.

What changed

The FDIC has proposed amendments concerning the framework used by large insured depository institutions to maintain depositor records and support rapid deposit-insurance determinations. Based on the FDIC’s accompanying policy direction and independent industry commentary, the proposal would likely preserve standardized depositor-record and data-access requirements while reducing or eliminating the need for institutions subject to 12 CFR part 370 to maintain separate, independent deposit-insurance determination systems.

Key dates

2026-07-23

EFRAG published the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft and opened a 100-day public consultation.

2026-10-28

The Government of Japan dated its comment letter on the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft.

2026-10-31 Deadline

EFRAG's public consultation on the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft closes.

2027-01-01

EFRAG is expected to deliver technical advice on ESRS-40a to the European Commission.

2028-01-01

The first financial years to which the proposed Article 40a reporting framework is expected to apply are expected to begin on or after this date, subject to adoption of the final rules.

2029-01-01

The first ESRS-40a reports are generally expected to be published in 2029 for financial years beginning on or after 2028-01-01, subject to the final delegated act and applicable publication timing.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map group and EU-entity turnover against the Article 40a thresholds, using the preceding financial year for the EUR 200 million subsidiary or branch test and each of the preceding two financial years for the EUR 450 million EU-turnover test.
• In-scope groups should monitor the outcome of the EFRAG consultation, the expected January 2027 technical advice and the European Commission's subsequent delegated act before treating any ESRS-40a exposure-draft provision as final.
• Reporting teams should compare existing ISSB-aligned or jurisdictionally mandated sustainability reporting with the ESRS-40a requirements and identify likely top-ups, particularly disclosures not covered by ISSB Standards.
• Groups may wish to model the data, governance and assurance consequences of global reporting, the proposed mixed approach and Japan's suggested EU-impact-focused alternative.
• EU subsidiaries and branches should clarify with their non-EU parent whether the reporting obligation will be met through an incorporated group report, an ESRS-40a report or another permitted equivalent, including arrangements for publication, accessibility and assurance.
• Stakeholders wishing to influence the final standard should consider submitting comments to EFRAG by the consultation deadline, including evidence on duplicative disclosures, EU-impact scoping and interoperability with ISSB-aligned standards.

What changed

The Government of Japan proposed that EFRAG clarify which ESRS-40a disclosure requirements would remain as top-ups where a non-EU group incorporates by reference a group sustainability report prepared under jurisdictionally mandated standards functionally aligned with ISSB Standards. Japan also proposed adding an alternative to the Exposure Draft's mixed approach that would reduce the reporting burden on non-EU companies while requiring reporting of all EU-related impacts. The Exposure Draft itself is a consultation proposal rather than a final binding standard.

Key dates

2019-08-01

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

2024-05-01

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

2025-02-24

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

2025-04-09

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

2026-10-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-12-04 Deadline

ASIC consultation on CS 69 and the proposed RG 172 update closes at 5pm AEDT.

Suggested considerations

• Market licensees should consider submitting responses to CS 69 by 5pm AEDT on 4 December 2026, addressing whether the proposed methodology is workable for their business model and venue type.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current financial-resources calculations against the proposed six-month minimum and identify whether all venue, group, outsourcing and related-party operating costs are included.
• Licensees should consider separating liquid resources supporting continuity and recovery from capital buffers supporting positive net assets and loss absorption, and documenting the legal availability of each resource.
• Market operators may wish to perform severe-but-plausible recovery and orderly-wind-down scenarios, including critical-service recovery, prolonged disruption, higher professional costs and support for affected users.
• Significant market venues should consider developing or enhancing scenario analysis, stress-testing governance, assumptions, frequency, management information and escalation thresholds.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to prepare evidence linking financial-resources calculations to specific balance-sheet items and to the methodologies and assumptions reported under section 792F.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing dividend, distribution, intra-group funding and other capital-management controls to prevent actions that could cause or reasonably be expected to cause a financial-resources shortfall.
• Licensees should consider establishing documented monitoring, notification and remediation processes for actual or prospective shortfalls, including assessment of notification obligations under section 792B and restoration timeframes agreed with ASIC.

What changed

The consultation proposes revised RG 172 guidance supporting the existing obligation in section 792A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 to maintain sufficient resources to operate a market properly. A licensee would assess resources for all of its activities, not only a particular venue, and would generally need resources sufficient to cover at least six months of operating expenses; the assessment should include relevant service and outsourcing costs, including related-party arrangements.

Key dates

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

2026-10-29

FCA CP26/39 published and consultation opens.

2026-12-17 Deadline

Deadline for responses to CP26/39.

2027-03-18

PS26/2 final rules and guidance on operational incident and material third-party reporting come into force; the CTP-related enhanced reporting framework is expected to apply from this date.

2027-01-01

FCA plans to publish a Feedback Statement confirming the income-sharing metric and percentage for the equity CTP.

2027-04-01

FCA expects to publish its Policy Statement on how shared equity-CTP income is distributed among data contributors during spring 2027.

Suggested considerations

• Trading venues and other potential data contributors should consider modelling how alternative allocation metrics, including data contribution, trading activity, quote quality or coverage measures, could affect their expected income-sharing receipts.
• Prospective equity CTP bidders should consider the proposed distribution methodology, the five-year concession structure and the resulting revenue, accounting, data-governance and contractual controls in procurement and operating models.
• CTPs and firms providing critical technology or data services to CTPs should map operational incidents against the PS26/2 thresholds and assess whether current escalation, evidence retention and regulatory-notification procedures can support reporting as soon as practicable.
• CTPs should consider whether their incident-management playbooks distinguish standard and enhanced reporting, capture significant status changes and support submissions through the FCA’s prescribed reporting channel.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting responses to the FCA consultation by 17 December 2026, particularly on allocation fairness, data-contribution measurement, treatment of different contributor classes and the operational burden of enhanced incident reporting.
• Compliance teams may wish to track the early-2027 Feedback Statement on the income metric and percentage, the spring-2027 Policy Statement on distribution rules and the separate final rules on systematic-internaliser quotes.

What changed

The FCA proposes to add Handbook rules and guidance governing how the portion of equity CTP income specified in the five-year concession agreement is allocated among data contributors. The proposed allocation rules would apply regardless of the income metric or percentage ultimately specified in that agreement; the FCA plans to confirm the income-sharing percentage and metric in an early-2027 Feedback Statement and the distribution rules in a spring-2027 Policy Statement.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA published Fair value in consumer finance and associated supervisory commentary; the examples are effective as supervisory guidance and do not create new rules.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every financial and non-financial charge across each product's full customer journey and lifetime, including contingent, arrears, repeat and cumulative charges.
• Firms should consider refreshing fair value assessments to reconcile current pricing and charging data with quantified or otherwise evidenced customer benefits, product limitations, service quality and foreseeable risks.
• Firms may wish to document how assumptions, management information, customer outcomes and governance challenge support each fair value conclusion, with clear ownership and audit trails.
• Firms should consider segmenting analysis by relevant customer groups, including vulnerability characteristics, credit risk, product usage, distribution channel and customers experiencing financial difficulty, and testing whether outcomes differ materially.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish monitoring for arrears, complaints, cancellations, usage, enquiries, refunds, waivers, repeat charges and customer understanding, with defined escalation thresholds and remediation options.
• Firms should consider testing whether fees and charges are communicated clearly, prominently and at the point customers need them to make informed decisions, including through customer-understanding testing.
• Firms may wish to review controls for grace periods, charge caps, fee waivers and refunds and evidence that those controls are appropriately designed, operating effectively and reducing foreseeable harm.
• Where late or missed repayment charges are justified by reasonable costs, firms should consider documenting the cost methodology, evidence relied upon and relationship between the methodology and the charge level, alongside the separate fair value assessment.

What changed

The publication does not amend the FCA Handbook or create new mandatory actions. It consolidates good and poor practice under the existing price and value outcome in PRIN 2A.4 and FG22/5, including the requirement for manufacturers under PRIN 2A.4.2R(2) to conduct and regularly review value assessments at intervals appropriate to the product's nature and duration.

Key dates

2026-03-04

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

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2026-10-28

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-23

ADGM’s Registration Authority announced the enforcement action and the total USD 88,000 penalties against MCA Auditors and its registered Audit Principal.

Suggested considerations

• Registered audit firms should consider performing a documented file-by-file review of risk assessments, fraud-risk responses, group-audit instructions and evaluations, communications with those charged with governance, and sufficient appropriate audit evidence for material balances and disclosures.
• Registered Audit Principals should consider documenting substantive involvement at planning, risk assessment, supervision, review, consultation, resolution of significant matters and completion stages, rather than relying on evidence of a final sign-off alone.
• Firms should consider mapping each engagement to the applicable requirements in the Companies Regulations (Auditors) Rules 2023 and the relevant International Standards on Auditing, with evidence of review and clearance of identified deficiencies.
• Audit firms should consider maintaining a formal root-cause analysis, remediation plan, ownership allocation, target dates and effectiveness testing process so that remediation can be demonstrated during a subsequent RA inspection.
• Audit committees and other those charged with governance at ADGM-registered entities should consider challenging the auditor on fraud risks, group-audit scope, significant judgments, material evidence and the registered principal’s oversight before approving or relying on the audit.
• ADGM audit firms should consider preparing for continued RA monitoring and inspections, including ensuring that working papers and governance communications are complete, contemporaneous, retrievable and internally consistent.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or amendment. It applies the Companies Regulations (Auditors) Rules 2023, including the obligations for Registered Auditors and Registered Audit Principals to conduct audit work in accordance with applicable technical and professional standards, including International Standards on Auditing, and to exercise due skill, care and diligence. The action signals that ADGM inspections will assess the complete audit evidence trail and the registered principal’s documented involvement across the engagement, not merely the final audit opinion.

Key dates

2025-10-22

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

2026-10-07

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

2026-10-16

The revised UT Code was gazetted.

2026-11-01 Deadline

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

2027-10-31 Deadline

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

2027-11-01 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-28

MAS published its statement reinforcing banks’ existing environmental-risk management expectations in the context of transboundary haze, pollution and deforestation.

Suggested considerations

• Banks should consider mapping customers, counterparties and financed activities that may be linked to open burning, deforestation, peatland development or other haze-related pollution, at both customer and portfolio level.
• Compliance and risk teams may wish to establish a process for capturing, validating and escalating relevant NEA information and notices issued under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act.
• Banks should consider enhancing customer due diligence for potentially haze-linked customers, including obtaining evidence of land ownership or control, fire-prevention and response arrangements, concession and supply-chain information, environmental permits, incident history and remediation measures.
• Banks may wish to document customer engagement, responses, management decisions and escalation criteria so that the rationale for continuing, conditioning, reducing or terminating exposure is demonstrable.
• Credit committees and relationship teams should consider incorporating environmental-risk findings into new-financing approvals, renewals, covenant-setting, pricing, collateral assessments and ongoing monitoring.
• For higher-risk customers, banks may wish to consider enhanced measures such as site visits, independent environmental expertise, satellite or geospatial monitoring and contractual rights to obtain information or suspend further drawdowns.
• Banks should consider defining governance triggers for cases involving suspected or confirmed breaches, with senior-management or board escalation where exposure limits or relationship exit is contemplated.
• Banks may wish to review public environmental-risk disclosures and transition plans for consistency with the strengthened supervisory focus, while recognising that the statement itself does not create a new disclosure deadline.

What changed

MAS has expressly linked banks’ environmental-risk processes to haze-related pollution and deforestation risks. Banks should consider relevant information released by the National Environment Agency under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act and engage customers potentially connected to haze-producing activities to obtain sufficient information about their role, including controls to prevent, detect and stop fires.

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

2023-02-28

Rex issued the profit forecast at the centre of the proceedings.

2023-04-14

The NSW Supreme Court found that Rex’s continuous disclosure breach commenced because it failed to disclose that it no longer had reasonable grounds for the forecast.

2024-12-01

ASIC commenced proceedings against Rex, the three non-executive directors, and former executive chairman and chief executive Lim Kim Hai; the source specifies December 2024 but not an exact day.

2026-06-30

The NSW Supreme Court found that Rex breached its continuous disclosure obligations but dismissed ASIC’s case against the three non-executive directors and did not establish misleading conduct by Rex.

2026-08-20

ASIC filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal the dismissal of part of its case, according to the related court-update material.

2026-10-20

Lim Kim Hai was disqualified from managing corporations for four years and ordered to pay an $800,000 pecuniary penalty after admitting involvement in Rex’s continuous disclosure breaches and breaches of directors’ duties.

2026-10-23

ASIC announced that it is seeking leave to appeal the findings concerning the three former non-executive directors.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing controls for monitoring earnings forecasts against current management information, operational trends and board materials, including clear escalation triggers when a forecast may no longer have reasonable grounds.
• Boards and non-executive directors may wish to ensure that material adverse trends, forecast variances and management warnings are clearly documented, discussed and escalated through formal board and disclosure committees.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether directors receive sufficiently clear and timely information to identify potential continuous disclosure issues, rather than relying only on aggregated financial reports or informal updates.
• Listed entities should consider documenting the basis for continuing, correcting or withdrawing earnings guidance and the decision-making process for ASX disclosure under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and applicable ASX Listing Rules.
• Firms should monitor the appeal process and any appellate guidance on the relationship between corporate continuous disclosure liability under section 674A and individual directors’ duties under section 180.
• Boards may wish to review director induction and continuing education concerning continuous disclosure, reasonable grounds for forecasts, escalation responsibilities and the evidentiary importance of board records.

What changed

No new binding obligation or threshold has been introduced by this publication. ASIC is challenging the primary judge’s findings that the evidence did not establish that the three non-executive directors knew Rex no longer had reasonable grounds for its 28 February 2023 positive operating-profit forecast, or that they therefore breached their duties under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key dates

2020-06-01

Beginning of the SFC’s alleged relevant period for coordinated trading in Taste•Gourmet shares.

2020-07-27

Taste•Gourmet shares first closed above the alleged HK$1.32 price needed, based on shares then in issue, to meet the HK$500 million market-capitalisation threshold.

2020-08-05

Taste•Gourmet announced that it had submitted a formal application to transfer its listing from GEM to the Main Board; the shares closed at HK$1.35.

2020-09-18

End of the SFC’s alleged relevant period.

2026-10-22

The SFC announced commencement of Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings under section 274 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing issuer-related personal-account dealing, connected-person trading and employee dealing controls for arrangements involving relatives, nominees, associates or accounts funded by another person.
• Compliance teams may wish to test surveillance for aggressive orders near the close, orders that establish or move the closing price, concentrated activity by connected accounts, wash or circular trading indicators, and trading that accounts for an unusually high proportion of daily volume.
• Listed issuers and their advisers should consider documenting the basis for any market-capitalisation or price-related listing eligibility assessment and ensuring that trading activity is not coordinated or presented as genuine investor demand.
• Broker-dealers may wish to enhance customer due diligence and transaction monitoring for sudden fund transfers followed shortly by purchases in a thinly traded issuer, particularly where the customer is connected to management or a listing applicant.
• Firms should consider preserving chat messages, emails, order records, funding records, beneficial-ownership information and communications concerning target prices or order timing when an issuer is involved in a listing transfer or other price-sensitive transaction.
• Senior management and boards may wish to review escalation procedures for suspected market manipulation and ensure that potential issues are referred promptly to legal, compliance and, where appropriate, the SFC or SEHK.
• Compliance teams should distinguish this commencement of MMT proceedings from a final determination and monitor the MMT case for findings that may further clarify evidential indicators and the treatment of non-executive participants.

What changed

This publication does not introduce a new rule or reporting deadline; it announces enforcement proceedings under section 274 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). The SFC alleges that, from 1 June 2020 to 18 September 2020, the respondents coordinated purchases, discussed a target price and order timing, used substantial fund transfers followed by share purchases, and placed aggressive orders near the close that moved or determined the closing price.

Key dates

2026-10-13

ESMA published its European Common Enforcement Priorities for the 2026 annual financial reports of listed issuers.

2026-10-21

The AFM published its guidance identifying the ESMA priorities and continuing Dutch focus areas for 2026 reporting.

Suggested considerations

• Issuers should map the ESMA 2026 priorities against their 2026 IFRS financial statements, sustainability statement, annual report and ESEF package, documenting conclusions for each material issue.
• Finance and risk teams should assess how geopolitical developments affect assumptions, impairment testing, liquidity, going-concern assessments, provisions, commitments and other relevant IFRS disclosures, rather than relying only on generic risk-factor language.
• Companies undertaking restructurings or debt modifications should consider whether IAS 37 provisions, IFRS 9 derecognition or modification accounting, covenant effects, liquidity disclosures and related management judgments are complete and internally consistent.
• Sustainability reporting teams should retain evidence supporting the double materiality assessment and consider whether positive and negative impacts are presented with comparable granularity, including for ESRS E1 and ESRS S1 where relevant.
• Issuers should reconcile each material impact, risk and opportunity to the relevant policies, actions, targets and metrics, explain gaps where no policy, action or target exists, and ensure targets are measurable, time-bound and outcome-oriented.
• Reporting owners should perform a cross-document consistency review between the sustainability statement, management report, financial statements, risk disclosures and other parts of the annual report.
• ESEF specialists should validate the statement of changes in equity taxonomy selections, anchoring, sign conventions, extensions and completeness of tags, and should conduct technical validation before filing.
• Preparers should use the AFM’s cash-flow points of attention and self-assessment to test classification, non-cash transactions, reconciliation disclosures, consistency with the financial statements and clarity of significant judgments.

What changed

The AFM has stated that its 2026 supervisory work will focus on ESMA’s priorities for annual reports of issuers admitted to trading on EEA regulated markets. For IFRS financial statements, this covers geopolitical risks and uncertainties, restructuring provisions, and debt restructuring. For sustainability reporting under the ESRS, issuers should demonstrate a robust double materiality assessment and connected disclosures linking impacts, risks and opportunities with related policies, actions, targets and metrics, with market commentary indicating particular attention to balanced treatment of...

Key dates

2026-10-21

CSSF published the communiqué warning about CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619; PHP also released security updates addressing the vulnerabilities on this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider urgently inventorying internet-facing and internally accessible services that run PHP, including PHP embedded in outsourced, cloud-hosted and vendor-managed applications.
• Technology and security teams may wish to determine the installed PHP branch and apply the relevant fixed release, including PHP 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36 or 8.2.35 where applicable, after validating compatibility and deployment integrity.
• Where immediate patching is not feasible, firms should consider isolating or taking affected internet-facing services offline, placing them behind network-layer authentication or equivalent compensating controls, and restricting PHP execution to required functions.
• Security teams may wish to review web-server, PHP, application, endpoint and identity logs for exploitation indicators, unusual child processes, unexpected outbound connections, persistence and activity associated with unauthenticated requests.
• Firms should consider assessing whether any unauthorised remote code execution, suspected compromise or material service disruption meets the applicable major ICT-related incident criteria and documenting the classification decision.
• DORA entities should consider preparing the notification required under Circular CSSF 25/893 and the applicable DORA implementing rules if the incident is classified as major; the initial notification is generally due within four hours of classification and no later than 24 hours after awareness, followed by an intermediate report within 72 hours and a final report within one month.
• Entities subject to CSSF Circular 24/847 should consider following that circular's notification process for a major ICT-related incident and confirming whether any parallel obligations arise under applicable NIS or sectoral requirements.
• Compliance teams may wish to retain evidence of the affected-asset inventory, patch or mitigation decisions, threat monitoring, incident assessment and communications with relevant ICT third-party providers.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new standalone rule or compliance deadline; it provides an urgent supervisory warning and links the risk to existing ICT incident-reporting obligations. Until the affected versions were officially confirmed, the CSSF's stated position was that all PHP-powered services should be treated as potentially exposed. Independent security analysis reported that PHP released fixes on 21 October 2026 in versions 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36 and 8.2.35, with both vulnerabilities rated CVSS 4.0 at 9.2 and capable of execution under the web-worker account.