Senior Managers / Governance

Key dates

2016-07-01

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

2019-03-13

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

2020-11-01

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

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

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

2025-03-24

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

2026-03-18

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

2026-11-06

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-05

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

2026-12-05 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-02

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

2026-11-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2024-07-09

Directive (EU) 2024/1619 (CRD VI) entered into force, introducing or strengthening governance requirements including responsibility mapping and a dedicated framework for third-country branches.

2025-01-01

The CRD VI banking package began applying according to the EBA consultation materials, with the revised Guidelines intended to support implementation of the updated framework.

2026-11-05

The EBA published the final revised Guidelines and the final report on internal governance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify the competent authority’s expected adoption or comply-or-explain treatment once the final Guidelines are translated and formally notified, because no application date is specified in the published final report.
• Firms should consider performing a gap assessment against the final provisions on management-body responsibilities, senior-management and key-function-holder role statements, responsibility mappings, reporting lines, organisational structures and internal-control arrangements.
• Institutions may wish to review board and committee terms of reference, chair and executive-role combinations, conflict-of-interest registers, recusal controls and escalation procedures against the clarified expectations.
• Third-country-branch operators should consider mapping the new branch-specific governance requirements to the local branch manager, head-office governance, risk management, internal control, oversight and reporting arrangements, using the proportionality available in the final text.
• Firms should consider checking consistency between internal-governance documentation and DORA-related ICT risk, operational resilience, business-continuity and third-party-risk arrangements.
• Groups may wish to determine which entities fall within the Guidelines and whether responsibility mappings should be maintained at entity, branch and group levels, documenting the rationale for the chosen scope.
• Compliance teams may wish to retain evidence of proportionality assessments based on size, nature, scale and complexity, rather than removing governance controls solely because the final Guidelines are less granular than the consultation draft.
• Firms should monitor publication of the final Guidelines in all EU official languages and subsequent national competent-authority communications before setting internal implementation deadlines.

What changed

The Guidelines clarify the responsibilities of the management body, senior management and key function holders, including documented statements of roles and duties and a mapping of responsibilities. They address organisational structures, management of conflicts of interest—including situations where the chair also has executive functions—and key elements of internal control frameworks. They introduce or clarify governance expectations for third-country branches under CRD VI, with greater proportionality than in the consultation draft.

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

2026-11-04

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-54 and the Supervisory Framework on Bank Use of Super Intelligence for examiner use.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory current and planned SI and agentic-SI use cases, including embedded functionality supplied by vendors, and map each use case to its business owner, permitted actions, autonomy level, human oversight, data sources, and potential consequences of failure or misuse.
• Banks should consider documenting a risk-based classification methodology focused on potential consequences, transfer of agency, and degree of human oversight rather than technical sophistication alone.
• Risk and control owners may wish to assess whether existing model-risk, governance, data-governance, privacy, cybersecurity, compliance, operational-resilience, vendor-management, testing, monitoring, documentation, auditability, and independent-challenge controls adequately address SI-enabled activities.
• Higher-consequence or more autonomous use cases should be considered for stronger restrictions on permitted actions, more direct human oversight, independent validation or challenge, enhanced performance monitoring, audit trails, testing, fallback procedures, and resilience measures.
• Boards and senior management may wish to clarify accountability for SI deployments without creating a separate SI risk appetite unless the bank determines that one is useful internally; the OCC framework does not require one.
• Internal audit and compliance teams may wish to retain evidence showing how SI risks are identified, measured, monitored, controlled, and escalated within existing risk-management frameworks, particularly because examiners may use the framework during ordinary examinations despite its nonbinding status.
• Banks should consider reviewing contracts and oversight arrangements for SI vendors, including access to data, model changes, incident notification, testing rights, service continuity, explainability or transparency, subcontracting, and termination or fallback arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor future OCC revisions and stakeholder feedback because the framework is expressly intended to be a living document.

What changed

The OCC provided examiners with a risk-based, proportionate framework covering SI used in activities including credit decisioning, payments, fraud detection, customer service, operations, risk management, and market activities. Examiners are instructed to consider the bank’s size, complexity, risk profile, and the nature, consequences, autonomy, and complexity of each SI use case; banks are not required to create a separate SI risk category or SI-specific risk appetite. The framework identifies 16 components across six pillars: purpose, risk, control, oversight, resilience, and assurance.

Key dates

2026-11-04

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-54 and the accompanying supervisory framework for examiner use.

2026-10-02

Executive Order 14434 was published in the Federal Register and is cited by the OCC as the source for the “super intelligence” terminology and broader definition.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider maintaining an inventory of SI and agentic use cases, documenting each system’s purpose, permitted actions, accessible data and systems, prohibited uses, degree of autonomy, human-oversight model, and business owner.
• Compliance teams may wish to prioritize review of use cases according to potential consequences of failure or misuse, transfer of decision-making agency, reversibility, customer or market impact, data sensitivity, and the practical ability of personnel to intervene.
• Banks should consider testing whether human reviewers can meaningfully understand, reject, pause, or stop system outputs and actions, rather than relying solely on nominal approval checkpoints or high-volume bulk approvals.
• Risk functions may wish to map SI-enabled activities to existing model risk management, operational-risk, cybersecurity, privacy, consumer-protection, compliance, and business-continuity controls instead of creating a standalone SI risk category.
• Governance teams should consider assigning accountable owners across the system lifecycle, including approval, deployment, change management, incident response, suspension, retirement, and post-incident remediation.
• Banks should consider establishing monitoring capable of detecting model drift, erroneous or harmful actions, unauthorized activity, control exceptions, low-frequency high-impact events, and customer harm, with defined escalation and containment procedures.
• Third-party risk teams may wish to review contracts for vendor notification of model changes and new SI functionality, incident and notification timelines, audit and testing rights, data-use restrictions, responsibility for model errors, service suspension rights, and operational-resilience obligations.
• Internal audit and independent validation functions should consider whether they can reconstruct material outputs and actions, assess control effectiveness, and provide effective challenge to developers, business owners, and validation teams.

What changed

The OCC provided examiners with a framework that supplements existing model risk management, governance, technology, compliance, cybersecurity, and operational-risk practices. It covers 16 components organized around purpose, risk, control, oversight, resilience, and assurance, including permitted use and authority, criticality assessment, human-in-the-loop and human-on-the-loop controls, governance and accountability, performance monitoring, operational resilience, documentation and auditability, vendor risk, testing, and independent challenge.

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

2018-08-03

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

2020-05-12

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

2020-12-07

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

2022-05-11

iSignthis changed its name to Southern Cross Payments Ltd.

2022-11-04

Southern Cross Payments Ltd was delisted from the ASX.

2024-06-21

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

2025-08-08

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

2025-09-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2026-12-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the Guided Retirement policy consultation.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-03

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

2027-02-01

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

2027-06-24 Deadline

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

2027-07-29 Deadline

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

2027-07-30

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

2027-08-31 Deadline

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

2028-06-29 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA published CP15/26 for consultation.

2026-12-04

Northern Ireland Assembly consultation on the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill closes; this is a legislative scrutiny date, not a stated PRA consultation deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to track the Northern Ireland Assembly’s passage and final commencement provisions for the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill rather than treating the consultation proposals as final requirements.
• Credit unions considering member referrals should assess governance, counterparty due diligence, member eligibility and service-specific responsibilities, and consider whether contracts prevent inappropriate transfer of credit risk back to the referring credit union.
• Credit unions considering loan participation should consider documenting originator and participant roles, borrower relationship ownership, underwriting and monitoring responsibilities, security and enforcement rights, default allocation, concentration limits, large-exposure treatment, provisioning and capital treatment.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to assess whether existing risk appetite, lending policies, management information, stress testing and internal controls are proportionate to the additional activities contemplated by the PRA.
• Firms may wish to map existing lending-limit, large-exposure, provisioning and capital processes against the proposed treatment of participation loans and identify data or systems changes needed before implementation.
• Credit unions that do not intend to undertake the new activities may wish to document that decision and retain evidence that their existing governance and control framework remains appropriate for their current business model.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the PRA’s final policy statement and any revised SS2/23 or Rulebook text before committing to new products or contractual arrangements.

What changed

The PRA proposes amendments to the Credit Unions Part of the PRA Rulebook and SS2/23 – Supervising Credit Unions. Member referral arrangements would be treated as an additional activity; the receiving credit union would retain responsibility for the referred member’s credit risk, and firms would be expected to maintain effective governance, due diligence and clear contractual allocation of responsibilities.

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA publication date for DP2/26 and FCA publication date for the parallel credit-union discussion paper DP26/1.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to DP2/26, submitted to [email protected].

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider whether to submit evidence or a response to DP2/26 by 2027-03-05, addressing the questions most relevant to their size, business model, activities and growth plans.
• Compliance teams may wish to map current prudential, reporting, governance and operational-resilience requirements against the proposed distinction between small and simple firms and larger or more complex credit unions.
• Credit unions considering growth should assess whether board expertise, senior-management capacity, capital and liquidity planning, credit-risk controls, member-servicing capability and operational resilience will scale with membership and lending volumes.
• Firms may wish to review governance and controls for aggregator-driven growth, mortgage lending, fixed-rate products, outsourced activities, third-party providers and CUSO relationships, because these are identified as areas where future safeguards or supervisory expectations may develop.
• Boards and senior managers should consider how existing responsibilities under Rule 11.5(3) of the Credit Unions Part of the PRA Rulebook are evidenced, including oversight of regulatory compliance, risk management and business growth.
• Credit unions may wish to evaluate their current solvent-exit and wind-down arrangements, including the feasibility of transferring business, selling a loan book, restructuring or maintaining continuity of member services.
• Trade associations and service organisations may wish to provide data on compliance costs, asset-based thresholds, barriers to permitted activities, common-bond expansion, CUSO use and the practical effects of different prudential models.
• Firms should monitor subsequent PRA and FCA consultations and any legislative proposals; no implementation plan or transition timetable has been established at this stage.

What changed

No rules, thresholds, permissions or supervisory requirements have been amended by DP2/26. The regulators are seeking evidence on six outcomes: proportionate regulation; consumer confidence and protection; competition and innovation; long-term sustainability; operational resilience and risk management; and orderly market exit.

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

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

2017-09-01

Start of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches concerning the Crown insurance arrangements; the date is approximate because ASIC states only September 2017.

2018-11-30

End of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches; ASIC states November 2018.

2022-03-01

ACBF entities entered liquidation; ASIC states March 2022, without specifying the exact day.

2026-02-01

The contested liability hearing concerning Jones took place in February 2026; ASIC has not specified the exact day.

2026-06-30 Deadline

Closing date for applications to the Government’s Youpla Support Program.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced the findings against Jones and Pattenden and the orders agreed with Pattenden.

2026-12-01

Payments under the Youpla Support Program are scheduled to continue being processed until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing board and committee processes for identifying, disclosing and managing actual or potential conflicts involving directors, officers and related parties.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether related-party insurance, reinsurance, outsourcing and service arrangements are demonstrably in the company’s interests, supported by independent analysis and properly documented board decisions.
• Boards may wish to review whether premium changes, counterparty concentration, offshore structures and insurer solvency risks are escalated promptly and communicated appropriately to affected customers.
• Insurers and other firms serving vulnerable or First Nations consumers should consider whether product governance, distribution controls and customer communications adequately address cultural, language, literacy and affordability risks.
• Companies should consider retaining evidence showing that directors challenged management assumptions, considered viable alternatives and monitored the ongoing financial and consumer consequences of material arrangements.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to monitor the later penalty hearing for Jones and the reserved decisions concerning Jonathan Law, Michael Wilson and Geoffrey Clayton, as those outcomes may provide further indications of ASIC’s approach to individual accountability and director disqualification.
• Firms should distinguish this case from a new industry-wide rule: the immediate orders apply to Pattenden, while the broader compliance significance is the enforcement precedent and ASIC’s stated priority of protecting vulnerable consumers.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or general compliance obligation. Pattenden is subject to a $250,000 civil penalty and a 15-year prohibition on managing corporations; Jones has been found liable, with penalties to be determined at a later hearing. ASIC’s case concerns alleged breaches of sections 180, 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 arising from insurance arrangements with Vanuatu-based Crown Insurance Services Limited, which ASIC alleged was beneficially owned and controlled by Pattenden and Jonathan Law and was not in the interests of the ACBF entities.

Key dates

2026-06-08

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

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

2026-12-07 Deadline

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

2027-07-01 Deadline

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

2027-10-11 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-23

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-28

ADGM published the Guidance on Crypto Mining Activities in and from ADGM under section 23 of the Commercial Licensing Regulations 2025.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering establishment or continued operation in ADGM should perform the RA pre-application self-assessment and document why their activities fall within commercial mining rather than an FSRA-regulated financial service.
• Operators should assess whether they require or should apply for the dedicated commercial licence associated with activity code 7230 and should avoid representing the licence as an authorisation to conduct regulated financial services.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare an up-to-date corporate structure and ultimate-beneficial-owner information for RA review, together with governance documentation proportionate to the scale and risk of the operation.
• Operators should identify all blockchain addresses used to receive mining rewards and establish controlled procedures for making the required confidential on-chain address disclosures to the RA.
• ADGM-headquartered groups should map global mining activities, reporting lines, outsourced infrastructure, jurisdictional controls and board oversight so that the ADGM entity can demonstrate reasonable supervision of overseas operations.
• Firms should review whether staking, validator, custody, brokerage, token issuance, investment management or other associated activities separately require FSRA permission or create an additional regulatory perimeter.
• Operators may wish to monitor the RA’s forthcoming consultation on the second-phase regulatory framework and preserve records supporting their current perimeter analysis, licensing basis, governance and operational-risk controls.
• Firms should consider the practical implications identified in independent commentary, including operational resilience, cybersecurity, infrastructure security, energy management, transparent service terms and any applicable UAE federal tax, accounting and AML/CFT requirements, without treating those commentary points as additional requirements expressly created by this publication.

What changed

Commercial crypto mining conducted in or from ADGM is associated with dedicated RA commercial activity code 7230 and requires the applicable commercial licensing pathway. The Guidance is technology-neutral and covers Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake and future consensus mechanisms. It establishes a pre-application self-assessment to help applicants distinguish mining from FSRA-regulated financial activities, and highlights expectations concerning corporate structure, ultimate beneficial ownership, and confidential disclosure of on-chain addresses used for reward flows.

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

2012-12-31

MISMEL was licensed by the DFSA as a credit rating agency.

2023-12-01

Beginning of the period during which MISMEL reported seven inadvertent data-disclosure incidents to the DFSA; the source specifies December 2023 but not an exact day.

2026-05-31

End of the incident period described by the DFSA; the source specifies May 2026 but not an exact day.

2026-10-28

The DFSA announced the enforcement action and USD 585,825 penalty against MISMEL.

Suggested considerations

• Credit rating agencies should consider mapping confidential-information flows, permitted uses, recipients and disclosure exceptions against DFSA COB 8.9.1 and COB 8.9.2.
• Compliance and technology teams may wish to test email, endpoint, access-control, data-loss-prevention and external-recipient controls using realistic scenarios involving inadvertent disclosures.
• Firms should consider documenting compensating controls and an approved replacement before disabling or materially changing any security tool, with formal risk acceptance where continuity cannot be achieved.
• Control owners may wish to review incident detection, escalation, investigation and regulatory-notification processes, including whether repeated near misses are aggregated and reported to senior management and the DFSA where applicable.
• Senior management and compliance teams should consider reviewing employee training, attestations, supervision and disciplinary arrangements so that confidentiality obligations are demonstrably enforced and not merely documented.
• Credit rating agencies may wish to retain sufficient records and audit trails to evidence the operation and testing of confidentiality controls, noting the DFSA Rulebook requirement to maintain relevant records for at least six years.
• Firms outside the credit-rating sector should consider the enforcement action as an indicator of DFSA expectations for proportionate data-confidentiality governance, although the cited COB 8.9 requirements specifically apply to credit rating agencies.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or prospective regulatory amendment. The DFSA found that MISMEL failed to implement and maintain adequate systems and controls to safeguard confidential information and failed to ensure that employees did not disclose it. The relevant DFSA framework requires a credit rating agency to maintain policies, procedures and controls preventing use of confidential information for unauthorised purposes and disclosure to other persons, subject to limited exceptions such as prior written consent or a legal obligation; COB 8.9.1 also addresses pending...

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

2026-10-26

Current date and FCA publication context for the review; firms have been told to take prompt action, but this is not a statutory compliance deadline.

2028-12-01

The FCA says the point-in-time publication may be treated as retired by December 2028 if it has not been removed sooner; this is not stated as a mandatory implementation deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map how the firm identifies direct defence businesses, defence supply-chain participants, dual-use technology businesses and relevant customers that are not accurately captured by SIC codes.
• Firms should consider testing whether onboarding and enhanced due diligence requests are risk-based, non-duplicative and proportionate to the individual customer's activities, jurisdictions, products, end use and supply chain, rather than triggered solely by a broad defence-sector label.
• Firms should consider reviewing blanket exclusions, revenue thresholds, automatic escalation rules and approval stages affecting defence customers, documenting why any retained restrictions are justified by legal, financial-crime, reputational or commercial-risk considerations.
• Firms should consider defining and governing reputational, ESG and sustainability criteria used in account opening, servicing, product access, restriction or closure decisions, with evidence that the criteria are consistently applied and aligned with stated risk appetite.
• Firms should consider establishing or improving management information covering defence-sector identification, application volumes, approval and rejection rates, onboarding duration, repeated information requests, escalation frequency, restrictions, closures, complaints and outcomes by customer risk category.
• Senior management and relevant committees may wish to review whether the available information allows them to challenge inconsistent treatment, unexplained delays or outcomes that arise from internal processes rather than the customer's actual risk.
• Where legally permissible and appropriate, firms should consider keeping applicants informed about additional checks, progress and likely decision timescales, and explaining decisions sufficiently to reduce avoidable uncertainty.
• Firms should continue to apply customer due diligence, enhanced due diligence, sanctions and other financial-crime controls required by applicable law; the FCA's message is to make those controls targeted and proportionate, not to reduce them.

What changed

No binding regulatory obligations or new thresholds have been introduced. The FCA has nevertheless written to firms providing banking services to SMEs and expects prompt action under existing requirements. Firms should review whether onboarding, enhanced due diligence, escalation, servicing, restriction and closure processes distinguish among different defence activities and reflect the specific customer, geographic, product, supply-chain, end-use, financial-crime and reputational risks.

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

2026-04-21

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd.

2026-09-25

Further voluntary restrictions were imposed on Kingscrown Finance Ltd, including limits on receiving payments from existing customers and an orderly wind-down requirement.

2026-10-07

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on MOMSB Ltd and Momentus Capital Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-09

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd, including restrictions on new customers, new lending arrangements and certain payments from existing customers, together with independent AML-framework reviews.

2026-10-15

Voluntary restrictions were imposed on Abbital Ltd, including specified conditions for taking on customers, entering into lending arrangements and accepting payments, together with an independent review of its AML systems and controls.

2026-10-23

The FCA announced the restrictions and reiterated its enhanced oversight of Annex 1 firms and due-diligence expectations for regulated firms dealing with them.

Suggested considerations

• Annex 1 firms should consider reviewing their business-wide AML risk assessment, customer and beneficial-owner due diligence, ongoing monitoring, suspicious-activity escalation, governance, management information, resourcing and independent-testing arrangements against the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
• Annex 1 firms seeking registration or under FCA assessment should consider ensuring that policies and controls are tailored to their actual lending activities, customer base, delivery channels and growth plans, rather than relying on generic or group-level documentation.
• The six named firms should consider mapping their operational processes, customer communications, payment arrangements and lending activity to the precise terms of their voluntary restrictions and preserving evidence of compliance with those terms.
• FCA-authorised firms should consider identifying all Annex 1 counterparties and refreshing onboarding and periodic-review procedures to obtain direct confirmation of registration, conduct independent verification, understand the counterparty's business model and assess whether its AML controls create heightened relationship risk.
• Regulated firms should consider recording the rationale for accepting, continuing or restricting relationships with Annex 1 firms and escalating discrepancies between a firm's registered activities, actual activities, ownership, governance or AML framework.
• Groups with multiple Annex 1 entities should consider documenting entity-specific risk assessments and controls, since group-wide or off-the-shelf procedures may not demonstrate that each entity manages its own risks effectively.
• Lenders and their service providers should consider contingency arrangements for restricted firms, including payment handling, loan-book servicing, customer communications and orderly wind-down scenarios.

What changed

Kingscrown Finance Ltd is subject to restrictions limiting how it may receive payments from existing customers and requiring an orderly wind-down of its existing loan book. MOMSB Ltd, Momentus Capital Ltd, Grosvenor Funding Ltd and Grosvenor Funding (North West) Ltd are restricted from taking on new customers or entering into new lending arrangements, subject to the specified exceptions; restrictions also apply to accepting payments from existing customers, and the firms must obtain independent reviews of their AML frameworks.

Key dates

2026-10-22

FCA published CP26/37 and opened the consultation.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for consultation responses.

2027-06-30

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-22

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

2027-01-22 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-22

PRA CP14/26 was published and the Phase 2 consultation opened.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the PRA consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current SMFs against the proposed pre-approved and notified categories, with particular attention to Chief Actuary, Risk Committee Chair, Audit Committee Chair and SMF7 roles.
• Firms should consider how they would evidence fitness, propriety, competence and conduct decisions if formal Certification Regime assessments, certificates and regulatory references are removed.
• Governance functions may wish to assess the proposed reduction in Prescribed Responsibilities and the future frequency of Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Maps, while preserving clear accountability records.
• Firms may wish to review succession and contingency arrangements against the proposed 18-week temporary SMF cover period and assess whether internal approval workflows can support faster interim appointments.
• Dual-regulated firms should compare PRA CP14/26 with FCA CP26/37 and identify differences in scope, timing, forms, conduct-breach notifications and transitional arrangements.
• PRA-authorised firms may wish to prepare a consultation response addressing the proposed implementation period before the 2027 final policy.
• Firms should continue operating existing SM&CR approval, certification, fitness and propriety, regulatory-reference and notification obligations unless and until final rules and applicable legislative changes take effect.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the passage and commencement of the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2026 because the principal Phase 2 reforms depend on those legislative steps.

What changed

The PRA proposes to introduce a notification approach for almost half of current Senior Management Functions, including Chief Actuaries and Chairs of Risk and Audit Committees, while retaining an anticipated power to require pre-approval for an otherwise notified role in exceptional cases. Group Entity Senior Manager Function SMF7 would be divided between pre-approved and notified roles.

Key dates

2024-04-01

Bank of America self-identified the inaccurate wire-transmittor information issue, according to the OCC enforcement order; the date is included as an approximate month-level historical reference represented by the first day of the month.

2024-10-01

Bank of America stopped the inaccurate transmittor-information practice in 2024; the OCC order does not provide an exact day, so this is an approximate month-level historical reference represented by the first day of the month.

2026-10-08

The OCC announced the American Express National Bank cease-and-desist order and $350 million civil money penalty.

2026-10-13

The OCC announced the Bank of America $750 million civil money penalty, described as the largest penalty in OCC history, in coordination with Treasury and FinCEN actions.

2026-10-22

The OCC published the October 2026 consolidated enforcement-actions release.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reassessing whether their BSA/AML risk assessments cover the risks of all material products and services, rather than concentrating on narrower deposit activity while underweighting credit-card, charge-card, correspondent, or payment activity.
• Compliance teams may wish to test end-to-end transaction-monitoring workflows for alert generation, escalation, investigation, disposition, and SAR filing, including backlog governance, aging thresholds, management information, and evidence that suspected trade-based money laundering is escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider validating that customer identification, customer due diligence, beneficial-ownership information, and ongoing-risk-rating processes are complete, accurate, risk-based, and aligned to the institution's actual customer and product populations.
• Banks may wish to perform a targeted review of outgoing wire data to confirm that originator or transmittor names and other required fields are accurate, consistently populated, retained, and not overwritten by deficient interfaces or manual processes.
• Boards and senior management should consider documenting sufficient staffing, subject-matter expertise, training, independent testing, audit coverage, and issue-remediation ownership for BSA/AML programs.
• Institutions operating under prior supervisory findings should consider independent validation that corrective actions are complete, effective, sustainable, and supported by evidence, rather than merely implemented procedurally.
• Compliance teams should consider reviewing whether third-party, correspondent, and payment-processing arrangements create data-quality or monitoring dependencies that could delay SAR filing or impair law-enforcement traceability.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement outcomes rather than a new rule or generally applicable deadline. American Express National Bank is subject to a cease-and-desist order and a $350 million penalty for an inadequately designed and monitored BSA/AML program, inadequate resources and expertise, internal-control weaknesses, weak independent testing and training, systemic failures involving approximately $13 billion of suspected trade-based money-laundering activity, and customer identification and customer due diligence deficiencies.

Key dates

2019-05-30

The Central Bank’s ASP investigation into PTSB concluded; PTSB had admitted 42 regulatory breaches and received a €21 million fine and reprimand.

2023-12-01

The Central Bank published ASP Guidelines providing further detail on its inquiry process; the exact publication day is not specified in the source, so this date denotes December 2023 only.

2025-04-23

The Central Bank Inquiry Decision concerning PTSB and David Guinane was issued.

2026-10-22

IFSAT published its decision, upheld Mr Guinane’s appeal and overturned the Inquiry Decision; the Central Bank stated that it does not propose to appeal.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to record the IFSAT outcome in enforcement-risk assessments and monitor the High Court confirmation process.
• Banks and mortgage lenders may wish to review open or potential individual-enforcement matters involving historic conduct to confirm that the alleged contraventions, issues for determination, evidential basis and proposed sanctions have been clearly particularised and communicated.
• Firms may wish to preserve governance records showing how customer-impact risks, escalation decisions, approvals and follow-up controls were assessed, particularly for tracker mortgage, conduct and legacy remediation matters.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to assess whether the reasoning reported in the decision has implications for ongoing Central Bank inquiries, including fair-notice, statutory-authority, procedural-fairness and reasons requirements.
• Firms may wish to distinguish this case from the separate PTSB entity enforcement outcome: PTSB admitted 42 regulatory breaches and received a €21 million fine and reprimand in 2019, which this publication does not overturn.
• Firms may wish to track the Central Bank’s external review of wider enforcement activities and any revisions to inquiry procedures, ASP guidance or Individual Accountability Framework implementation.

What changed

No new regulatory obligation or rule has been introduced for firms. The specific inquiry decision against Mr Guinane has been overturned, and the Central Bank does not propose to appeal the IFSAT findings. Independent reporting indicates that IFSAT found the inquiry process and reasoning legally defective, including failures to give fair notice of certain issues and to provide adequate reasons. The Central Bank will apply to the High Court for confirmation of the IFSAT decision under the Central Bank Act 1942.

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

2026-10-21

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-51 and stated that applications and waiver requests will be accepted only after OMB approves the related information collection.

2027-01-18 Deadline

The GENIUS Act and OCC final rule become effective; the Prior Approval Requirement generally applies, and unauthorized issuance of a payment stablecoin in the United States may carry criminal penalties.

2028-01-18 Deadline

The maximum statutory period for a waiver beginning on January 18, 2027 expires, subject to the terms and shorter duration of any individual waiver.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should determine whether they are currently issuing a payment stablecoin in the United States and whether they fall within the OCC application pathway or another primary federal payment stablecoin regulator's pathway.
• Existing issuers should consider preparing and submitting a substantially complete OCC application as soon as the agency announces that applications are accepted, rather than relying on the waiver as a substitute for authorization.
• Applicants should map their submission against every prescribed application question and documentation requirement, including the business plan, management, reserve assets, issuance and redemption processes, risk management, capital and liquidity, shared services, BSA/AML, OFAC, third-party risk, enterprise risk, compliance risk, and audit functions.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare a separate written waiver request addressing the Prior Approval Requirement, identifying any additional GENIUS Act or final-rule requirements that cannot be met by January 18, 2027, and explaining the requested duration and operational rationale.
• Issuers should monitor the OCC's GENIUS Act landing page and press releases for OMB approval and the opening of the application and waiver process, because the bulletin does not provide a fixed application-opening date.
• Firms should maintain evidence supporting the completeness and accuracy of their applications and establish a process to respond promptly to OCC requests for missing information within the 30-day review cycles.
• Prospective issuers that are not already operating in the United States should consider planning for operations to begin only after OCC approval, consistent with the agency's stated position on waiver eligibility.
• Regulatory change teams should continue tracking separate FinCEN, OFAC, OCC, and other agency rulemakings concerning AML, CFT, sanctions, and customer-identification requirements rather than assuming that an OCC application or Prior Approval Requirement waiver resolves those obligations.

What changed

Beginning January 18, 2027, a person generally must be approved as a permitted payment stablecoin issuer before issuing a payment stablecoin in the United States; unauthorized issuance may carry criminal penalties. Under GENIUS Act section 5(f) and 12 CFR 15.30(g), an issuer with a substantially complete OCC application pending on January 18, 2027 may request a written waiver of the Prior Approval Requirement and other statutory or final-rule requirements that it cannot satisfy by the effective date.

Key dates

2025-10-31 Deadline

Deadline by which the 21 companies were allegedly required to lodge their financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2025.

2025-08-01

ASIC commenced the surveillance of late and non-lodgement of financial reports referred to in the publication.

2026-10-21

ASIC published the enforcement release announcing payment of the 21 infringement notices.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify every Australian entity in their group that is a public company, large proprietary company, disclosing entity or registered scheme and map each entity to its applicable reporting and lodgement deadline.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish a documented annual-report timetable working backwards from the statutory deadline, including audit dependencies, board approval, director declarations, ASIC lodgement and contingency escalation.
• Groups should consider assigning entity-level accountability for lodgement rather than relying solely on a parent-company or central finance function, and retaining evidence of deadline monitoring, escalation and board oversight.
• Companies approaching a deadline may wish to assess promptly whether an extension or other available regulatory process is relevant; late lodgement does not remove the underlying breach risk once the deadline has passed.
• Firms should consider reviewing director and officer governance arrangements against Corporations Act 2001 section 344, which requires officers to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with financial-reporting requirements, and section 180 where applicable.
• Recipients of an ASIC infringement notice should consider the statutory response options and obtain appropriate legal advice before paying, disputing or seeking additional time, while recognising that payment is not an admission or conviction.
• Groups should review whether delays in one entity indicate a broader control weakness affecting subsidiaries with different financial year ends or reporting classifications.

What changed

No new filing deadline or substantive accounting rule was introduced. ASIC has, however, materially reinforced its enforcement position under the Corporations Act 2001: companies required to lodge financial reports must meet the applicable statutory deadline, and ASIC may issue infringement notices for alleged failures. Each of the 21 companies paid $198,000 under an infringement notice; payment is not an admission of guilt or liability and does not constitute a conviction.

Key dates

2019-01-01

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

2020-09-22

Kadir Kanizi was appointed as a director of Vector Wealth.

2021-01-01

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

2021-09-06

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

2025-01-28

Vector Wealth's FCA authorisation ended.

2026-10-21

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning Dawkins and Kanizi.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-20

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-10-16

The FSA published the exposure-draft consultation materials prepared by the Audit Standard Committee of the Business Accounting Council.

2026-11-16 Deadline

Public comments close at 5:00 p.m. JST.

Suggested considerations

• Audit firms should review the exposure draft against current Japanese Auditing Standards, the Standard to Address Fraud Risks, ISA 240, and ISA 570, and identify differences in required procedures, documentation, communications, and reporting.
• Issuers and other audited entities should assess whether their going-concern assessment process, cash-flow forecasts, stress testing, remediation plans, and financial-statement disclosures can support a more demanding auditor review.
• Finance and audit-committee functions should consider whether management’s documented assessment period extends to at least 12 months after the financial statements’ authorization date, as indicated by independent commentary on the draft.
• Audit committees and supervisory boards should consider whether existing oversight of fraud-risk assessment, management override, whistleblowing, unusual transactions, and remediation of control deficiencies addresses issues highlighted by recent Japanese fraud cases.
• Eligible stakeholders should consider submitting comments to the FSA by 5:00 p.m. Japan Standard Time on November 16, 2026, particularly on transition timing, the scope of enhanced going-concern reporting, and the interaction between the Japanese standards and international standards.
• Multinational groups should monitor the final Japanese requirements and compare them with the going-concern and fraud-audit requirements applied to the group under ISA or other local auditing frameworks.

What changed

The consultation proposes revisions requiring auditors to take more appropriate and consistent actions regarding the going-concern assumption and to enhance explanations and information provided about going-concern matters, while maintaining consistency with international auditing standards. It also initiates a review of the alignment between International Standards on Auditing, Japanese Auditing Standards, and Japan’s Standard to Address Fraud Risks, including whether the standards adequately address lessons from recent fraud cases.

Key dates

2023-02-28

Rex issued the ASX announcement stating that it was optimistic of achieving positive operating profit for the financial year.

2023-06-20

Rex subsequently forecast a $35 million loss, according to the independent reporting and ASIC proceedings described in the surrounding litigation.

2024-07-30

Rex shares were suspended from trading when the company entered voluntary administration.

2024-12-11

ASIC commenced proceedings against Rex, Lim Kim Hai and three former non-executive directors.

2025-09-30

Rex ceased to be listed on the ASX, following its listing from November 2005 to September 2025.

2025-12-01

Rex was acquired by United States-based Air T and subsequently renamed Regional Express Holdings Pty Ltd.

2026-05-20

Lim Kim Hai admitted all alleged contraventions against him, including the section 180(1) directors’ duty breach and involvement in Rex’s section 674A(3) continuous disclosure contraventions.

2026-08-20

ASIC filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal the dismissal of part of its case against Rex and the former non-executive directors.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review continuous disclosure policies and test whether material profit forecasts, earnings guidance and other market-sensitive statements are supported by documented, current and objectively reasonable assumptions.
• Boards and senior executives may wish to establish clear escalation triggers requiring immediate review of prior ASX announcements when financial performance deteriorates or underlying assumptions change.
• Compliance teams should consider maintaining an auditable record of the information available to directors when announcements are approved, including management forecasts, variance analysis, board papers and dissenting views.
• Listed entities should assess whether their procedures enable rapid correction, withdrawal or clarification of announcements that become inaccurate, misleading or unsupported, rather than waiting for the next scheduled results announcement.
• Boards may wish to confirm that directors understand the interaction between the company’s continuous disclosure obligations under section 674A of the Corporations Act 2001 and their personal duty of care and diligence under section 180(1).
• Firms should consider targeted training for executive and non-executive directors on market-sensitive information, earnings guidance, reasonable grounds for forecasts and escalation responsibilities.
• Companies involved in current or prospective enforcement matters may wish to preserve relevant board, forecast, email, announcement-approval and disclosure-committee records.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or amended obligation. The Court approved a four-year disqualification under sections 206C and 206E of the Corporations Act 2001 and an $800,000 pecuniary penalty under section 1317G(1), with payment required within 28 days of the order. The case establishes a significant practical compliance signal for listed entities: directors and senior officers may be personally exposed where they fail to take reasonable steps to ensure accurate market disclosure, including correcting guidance that has become misleading or lacks reasonable grounds.