On 27 February 2026, there was published in the Official Journal of the EU (OJ) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/482 of 24 November 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/567 as regards the determination of what constitutes a liquid market for equity instruments, the obligation to provide market data on a reasonable commercial basis, the size specific to the instrument for the purposes of obligations for systematic internalisers, and the definition of and disclosure for post-trade risk reduction services.The Delegated Regulation enters into force on the third day following its publication in the OJ, with Article 1, point (4), applying from 23 August 2026.Our earlier blog on the Delegated Regulation can be found here.

On 27 February 2026, there was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ), Commission Delegated regulation (EU) 2026/466 of 17 November 2025 supplementing the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the characteristics of liquidity management tools.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/466 will enter into force on 19 March 2026 (20 days after publication in the OJ) and shall apply from 16 April 2026.Our earlier blog on the RTS can be found here.

On 27 February 2026, there was published in the Official Journal of the EU (OJ), Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/465 of 17 November 2025 supplementing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive with regard to regulatory technical standards (RTS) specifying the characteristics of liquidity management tools.Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/465 will enter into force on 19 March 2026 (20 days after publication in the OJ) and shall apply from 16 April 2026.Our earlier blog on the RTS can be found here.

On 27 February 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued Handbook Notice No. 138.This Handbook Notice describes the changes to the FCA Handbook and other material made by the FCA Board under their legislative and other statutory powers on 29 January and 26 February 2026.The changes relate to: Deferred Payment Credit: Following the FCA’s publication of CP25/23, the Deferred Payment Credit Instrument 2026 makes changes to the FCA Handbook which includes inserting a new Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) chapter (CONC 16), new sections (CONC 4.2.A, CONC 7.20) and new transitional provisions. The Handbook Notice mentions that these are amendments have been made by the FCA Board in order to mitigate the risks of consumer harm, in particular, by ensuring borrowers receive clear, timely information. This instrument comes into force on 1 April 2026, 15 July 2026 and 31 December 2026. The FCA published PS26/1 on these changes. UK Listing Rules (UKLR): Following consultation in chapter 7 of consultation paper 25/24 (CP25/24), the UK Listing Rules (Notification of Purchases) Instrument 2026 makes changes to Handbook section UKLR 9.6 and 9.7 which relate to notifying purchases of own securities under the UKLR. This instrument came into force on 27 February 2026 to which feedback from CP25/24 is published in Chapter 3 of this Handbook Notice. Targeted support: Following CP25/17, the Advice Guidance Boundary Review (Targeted Support) Instrument 2026 amends the Handbook to create a framework for a new form of targeted support for consumers’ pensions and retail investment decisions (Conduct of Business Sourcebook 9B). The instrument comes into force on 2 March 2026, 6 April 2026, 31 December 2026 and 6 April 2027. The FCA published PS25/22 on these changes including a near-final version of the rules in December 2025. Minor Handbook amendments: The Handbook Administration (No 76) Instrument 2026 makes minor changes to various modules of the Handbook to correct or clarify existing provisions that have been previously consulted on. None of these changes represent any change in FCA policy. This instrument came into force in part on 27 February 2026 with the remainder coming into force on 7 May 2026. The next FCA Board meeting is scheduled for 26 March 2026.

On 27 February 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a new webpage on how to use sustainability labels as part of the Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) regime.The FCA explains that the labels are for funds with environmental or social goals and these firms can choose to use labels if their funds meet the criteria.In particular, the FCA reminds firms of the following: Criteria: all products using labels must meet the general criteria, as well as criteria specific to each label as set out in see Annex 2 of its Policy Statement (PS23/16). How to use a label: firms must notify the FCA of plans to use a label by completing a notification form but that the full process to use a label will be different depending on the type of fund in scope. Downloadable labels: firms and distributors in scope of the SDR regime intending to use labels should download the relevant label from the form when notifying the FCA of their intention to use a label. 

On 27 February 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a new webpage, outlining its findings in relation to good and poor practice for using labels under the Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) regime.BackgroundThe FCA explains that firms in scope have been able to use sustainability labels under the SDR regime since July 2024 and that the examples it sets out here are intended to help firms prepare pre-contractual disclosures for use of labels, following the pre-contractual disclosure examples it published previously.Summary of findingsThe FCA set out the following examples of good and poor practice in relation to each of the sustainability labels, in particular: Sustainability Focus: Good practice – it is clear that the objective is to invest in assets that are environmentally or socially sustainable; the disclosures outline potential negative outcomes from this investment approach; there is a scoring system that classifies assets as sustainable if they score 7 out of 10 which includes a description of the criteria that assets would need to meet or attributes that they would need to have to get that score; and, where a fund has a sustainability objective to invest in products/services across several themes, it uses KPIs that show how the fund is invested across those themes. Poor practice – the objective is not clear, specific and measurable; a company is selected based on some sustainable attributes without considering the complete picture; the standard of sustainability is not backed by evidence; the firm claims that 100% of the company’s revenues is derived from sustainability products/services but cannot substantiate that claim. Sustainability improvers: Good practice – the disclosure sets out how the firm intends to measure an outcome in relation to an objective; the firm decides which assets have the potential to meet the standard based on disclosures, clear strategies, and transition plans; KPIs show decarbonisation where the fund’s sustainability objective is to invest in assets with the potential to decarbonise. Poor practice – a fund has a climate-related objective that is only based on reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but gives the impression that the aim is to reduce ‘all’ emissions (including Scope 3); the firm assumes that assets will set decarbonisation targets, without any robust evidence to support this; firms continue to engage with companies that aren’t making progress towards the objective, with no timeframe for them to respond to the engagement, or next steps if they don’t. Sustainability impact: Good practice – the outcomes are clear in each of the areas of intended impact; a fund’s assets aim to provide the general population with access to education and the firm clearly sets out what change it expects, the firm does not clarify what change it expects by investing the relevant assets or why. Poor practice – the fund seeks broad or unmeasurable impacts; the KPIs are not consistent with the objective and theory of change.  Sustainability mixed goals: Poor practice – the fund intends to invest in assets that focus on sustainability (Focus) or have the potential to improve over time (Improvers); however, all assets have Improvers’ attributes, and it is not clear which assets already meet a standard of sustainability and are therefore considered Focus.

On 26 February 2026, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2026 (the Order) was published on legislation.gov.uk, together with an explanatory memorandum.The Order amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001 (the Exemption Order) to exempt certain persons from the general prohibition set out in Section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which provides that no person may carry on a regulated activity within the UK without being an authorised person or an exempt person.Under Article 3A of the Exemption Order, persons listed in Part 1A of the Schedule are exempt from the general prohibition in respect of any regulated activity. Article 2(2) of this Order amends Part 1A by adding the British Business Bank plc, together with various of its subsidiary companies, and the National Housing Bank Limited to the list of exempt persons.The Order was made on 24 February 2026 and comes into force on 27 March 2026.

On 24 February 2026, the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced a new Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self Disclosure Program for Financial Crimes (the Program)  which offers eligible companies a clear, two step path to a declination for fraud or financial misconduct affecting market integrity.In our latest briefing note, we look at key policy updates and clarifications of the Program and practical takeaways for firms.

On February 20, 2026, the German regulator, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), published the draft circular “Administrative Practice on Takeover Law” for consultation (Circular).The new Circular is intended to make BaFin´s administrative practice more transparent and thus to facilitate the conduct of takeover-related procedures for market participants.In particular, the Circular sets out BaFin’s existing administrative practice regarding selected issues of takeover law such as, inter alia, the bid procedure, the acquisition of control, or the disclosure obligations of the offeree company. Earlier publications on takeover law (including, among others, the Guidance Notice on the Interpretation of Section 35 (3) of the German Securities Acquisition and Takeover Act (WpÜG) by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) are being consolidated and replaced by the Circular.The Circular is aimed at market participants who intend to conduct procedures under the WpÜG in conjunction with the provisions of the WpÜG Offer Regulation (WpÜG-AngebotsVO) and, where applicable, the Stock Exchange Act (BörsG).The consultation period ends on 20 March 2026.

On 26 February 2026, HM Treasury (HMT) published the Payments Forward Plan (the Plan) delivered by the Payments Vision Delivery Committee.The PlanThe Payments Vision Delivery Committee comprises of representatives from the Bank of England, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Payment Systems Regulator and HMT. The Plan provides a regulatory roadmap for the payments sector over the next three years alongside actions already taken to address the findings of the Future of Payments Review in 2023.The Plan also brings together ongoing and upcoming work across retail payments, wholesale payments and certain aspects of digital assets. It includes details of initiatives, in particular: The modernisation of the regulatory framework: The Plan provides a timeframe of initiatives including the consolidation of the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) into the FCA, review of assimilated payments law including Payment Services Regulations and E-Money Regulations, systemic payment systems fee cap and the Financial Ombudsman Service reform. The Plan also states that in Q2 2026 HMT will publish a consultation paper on payment services law including its approach to Open Banking and stablecoin payments alongside an FCA engagement paper on the review of assimilated payment services law expected between Q2-Q4 2026 with a HMT Statutory Instrument to be laid in Parliament during 2027–2028. HMT is also exploring options for a systemic payment systems fee cap and will consult on proposals in Q2-Q3 2026. Innovation in retail payments: The Plan notes timings for the retail payments infrastructure design and delivery programme in Spring 2026, short term enhancements to existing retail payments infrastructure including the Faster Payment System and BACS payment system by end of 2026, stablecoin reforms and Open Banking. It notes that the FCA will consult on the Long-Term Regulatory Framework interface rules in Q3 2026, with a policy statement following in Q1 2027 and HMT’s statutory instrument under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 expected in Q4 2026. It further notes the design phase runs of the Digital Pound throughout 2026 with HMT and the Bank of England expected to publish a blueprint and a decision on the future of the digital pound during the year. It also mentions the Competition and Markets Authority’s plans to consult on potential interventions regarding digital wallets from H1 2026 onwards. Innovation in wholesale payments: The Bank’s Wholesale Experiments Programme will culminate with a final report in Q4 2026 with the Plan mentioning that the regulators are exploring in relation to the Digital Securities Sandbox (DSS), which remains open for applications until March 2027, whether regulated stablecoins can enable on-chain settlement within the DSS during H1 2026 and beyond. Ensuring effective competition in card schemes: On scheme and processing fees, the PSR is consulting on remedies which aim to increase transparency of fees for acquirers, with knock-on benefits for merchants, as well as to improve the information available to the PSR on the schemes’ pricing and profitability in the UK. On cross-border interchange fees, the PSR is undertaking analysis to assess the appropriate level for cross-border interchange fees for outbound, UK-EEA, card-not-present transactions. Protecting users in the system: The Plan considers timings for initiatives including authorised push payment (APP) fraud, anti-money laundering, the Payment and Electronic Money Special Administration Regime, the FCA Consumer Duty and reforms to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in Spring 2026. This includes the Data Strategy to be published in Q3 2026 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Strategy in Q3 2026 where HMT will lay a statutory instrument in Q1 2026 to improve the effectiveness of Money Laundering Regulations. In addition, the FCA is conducting multi-firm work on payments firms’ treatment of consumers in vulnerable circumstances with good and poor practice findings expected to be published in Q1 2027. Access to Cash: To assess whether the Access to Cash regime has maintained reasonable access to cash in the UK. This will help ensure the rules are working effectively to support financial inclusion. International: To support efforts to make cross-border payments faster, cheaper, more transparent and more accessible, including the implementation of practices that enhance safety and security and improve the detection of financial crime. Next stepsThe Payments Vision Delivery Committee has agreed to add an enhanced focus on payments to the Regulatory Initiatives Grid in its first 2027 publication.

On 11 February 2026, the Financial Services (Designated Consumer Body and Designated Representative Body) Order 2026 No. 124 was made. An explanatory memorandum has also been published.This Order designates the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute as a representative body capable of making certain fast-track complaints to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator where in their view there is, or appears to be, significant damage to the interests of certain consumers of financial services or of those who use or are likely to use services provided by payment systems.

On 13 February 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued final guidelines (dated 5 February 2026) on proportionate retail diversification methods under the standardised approach for credit risk.BackgroundThe final guidelines have been developed pursuant to Article 123(1) of the Capital Requirements Regulation, which mandates the EBA to specify proportionate diversification methods for retail exposures under the Standardised Approach for credit risk.The main objective of the final guidelines is to provide harmonised guidance at the EU level for appropriate retail diversification methods that are required to fulfil the mandatory criterion for satisfactory diversification for an exposure to be granted a preferential risk weight treatment and ultimately achieving a level playing field across the EU. In particular, this instrument should retain the possibility also for institutions that are not holding a granular enough retail portfolio to apply the preferential retail risk weights to that part of the portfolio, which is sufficiently diversified.ConsultationPreviously, the EBA conducted a consultation of the final guidelines which took place between 12 November 2024 to 12 February 2025. The EBA held a virtual public hearing on the consultation paper on 16 December 2024, from 15:00 to 16:00 CET.Final guidelinesIn the consultation paper, the EBA presented two alternative approaches for assessing diversification: an iterative method proposed as the baseline option, and a one-step alternative. In the final guidelines, the EBA has opted for the one-step approach to ensure proportionality and reduce the operational burden for institutions. The diversification threshold has also been raised from 5% to 10% compared with the consultation proposal, reflecting industry feedback and easing the impact on small and medium-sized institutions while maintaining sound prudential safeguards.The final guidelines also clarify the treatment of securitised retail exposures, distinguishing between the diversification assessment applicable when institutions act as originators and when they act as investors. For investor institutions, a limited and temporary derogation is introduced when obligor‑level information is not available under the applicable transparency templates, allowing the diversification condition to be deemed fulfilled.

On 11 February 2026, the European Commission (Commission) launched a public consultation and a call for evidence on the evaluation and potential review of the Shareholder Rights Directive.OverviewOn 19 March 2025, the Commission adopted its strategy for the Savings and Investments Union (SIU) and announced its intention to assess the need for, and consider carrying out, a potential review of the Shareholder Rights Directive by Q2 2026. This forms a key part of the Commission’s commitment to remove barriers to market integration and scale in the EU capital market, as highlighted by the SIU strategy, to achieve the European Union’s objective for a unified and competitive Single Market.The general objective of this initiative is to boost the competitiveness of EU listed companies and simplify procedures for financial market participants by (i) improving corporate governance as regards the use of digital technologies and (ii) facilitating the flow of information and the exercise of rights between listed companies, intermediaries and shareholders by leveraging digital solutions.The public consultation seeks views from companies, shareholders and investors and how revised rules can help unify EU capital markets . It also seeks views on how shareholder rights can be modernised to effectively address changes in market practices and technological developments.EvaluationIn light of the evolving landscape of the exercise of shareholder rights since the adoption of the Shareholder Rights Directive enacted in 2007, and the Shareholder Rights Directive II in 2017, the evaluation will examine the Shareholder Rights Directive in terms of its effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, EU added value and coherence.In particular, the evaluation will examine: whether the Shareholder Rights Directive has achieved the objectives set at the time of its enactment (effectiveness); the costs and benefits of the current rules for specific stakeholders and whether any simplification is needed (efficiency); whether the Shareholder Rights Directive has responded to the needs and expectations of stakeholders (relevance); the internal coherence of the shareholder rights framework and its external coherence with other EU/international instruments (coherence); and the extent to which what has been achieved by the Shareholder Rights Directive could not have been achieved by Member States acting at national level (EU added value). Impact assessmentThe evaluation will be conducted in parallel with an impact assessment whereby the findings of the evaluation will feed into the impact assessment. The impact assessment will assess policy options in a number of areas which include , albeit not limited to, the identification of shareholders, the transmission of information, the exercise of shareholder rights, the transparency of institutional investors, asset managers and proxy advisors, and the format of general meetings and the rights exercised by shareholders in connection with those meetings.Next stepsThe specific policy options will depend on the outcome of the evaluation and the impact assessment, taking into account the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The results of all consultation activities will be presented in a synopsis report.The public consultation and the call for evidence will run for 12 weeks, inviting feedback from stakeholders until 6 May 2026.Upon announcing the Commission’s initiative, Michael McGrath, Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection said:“Shareholders are the engines of growth, providing the capital, confidence, and long-term support companies need to expand and drive cross-border investment across the EU. This is why a clear and effective system for shareholder rights is essential; we want to hear directly from investors, innovators, and all stakeholders – what still holds our markets back, how can we break down barriers, and how can we build a simpler, fitter and more efficient system to boost the competitiveness of the EU.”

On 12 February 2026, HM Treasury (HMT) published a consultation in relation proposed changes to the Appointed Representatives (AR) regime.BackgroundOn 11 August 2025, HMT published a policy statement setting out an approach intended to shore up confidence in the use of ARs and to safeguard the future of the UK’s AR regime. The policy statement included an initial explanation of proposals intended to achieve this and this consultation sets out more detail on the proposed changes and seeks the views of stakeholders.SummaryHMT explains that it wants to ensure safe operation of the AR regime and therefore intends to adapt the legislative framework for ARs to provide a proportionate level of protection for consumers of AR firms, while ensuring that the current broad scope of the AR regime is preserved.Targeted reforms to the legislative framework proposed in this consultation include: Introduction of a Principal permission: Authorised firms wishing to act as Principal for ARs will need to first obtain permission from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to enable the FCA to ensure authorised firms have appropriate expertise and resource to effectively oversee their ARs. However, existing principal firms will not be required to apply for the new permission but will be deemed to have permission from the FCA and will be able to maintain their existing AR appointments, as well as appoint new ARs as necessary. That said, the FCA will have the ability to vary or withdraw such permission in the future if that proves necessary. In addition, the FCA plans to embed the principal permission in the new firm authorisation process so that there will not be a separate application process for a new firm to follow if the applicant firm seeks permission to act as principal when otherwise seeking authorisation from the FCA. Tied agents: Under the EU’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), a tied agent is a person or firm under the responsibility of an authorised MiFID investment firm on whose behalf it acts. However, HMT considers that section 39A Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000 which implemented the relevant MiFID provisions in relation to tied agents no longer serves a purpose and therefore intends to repeal this provision. This is because for an agent of a UK MiFID investment firm to carry on regulated activity in the UK the agent would need to meet the conditions to act as an AR under section 39 of FSMA 2000 in any event and where a UK MiFID firm or its agent carries on activity in an overseas jurisdiction this would be a matter for the overseas jurisdiction, therefore HMT considers that UK regulation of such activity is unnecessary. Extension of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) jurisdiction to ARs: The government intends to implement a targeted extension of the FOS compulsory jurisdiction to ensure that all consumers of regulated financial services, whether dealing with an authorised firm or an AR, have access to the FOS on a consistent basis. As a result, under these proposals, consumers will be able to take a complaint to the FOS if they are unable to resolve a dispute involving an AR where an authorised firm is not responsible for the issue in dispute. Bringing ARs within scope of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime: Rationalising the conduct and fitness & propriety frameworks that apply to ARs so that they are better aligned with the frameworks applying to authorised firms. In particular, the FCA would have the ability to create a new dedicated AR Senior Management Function in principal firms, which would reflect the responsibility that principal firms take on when appointing ARs, with senior management functions within principal firms held to account for overseeing the principal’s ARs. Next stepsHMT has asked for feedback on this consultation by 9 April 2026.

On 12 February 2026, the European Commission issued for consultation a draft Delegated Regulation (EU) supplementing European Market Infrastructure Regulation by specifying the method for the determination of fees charged by the European Banking Authority (EBA) for the validation of the pro forma models referred to in Article 11(3), fourth subparagraph, of that Regulation, and specifying the modalities of the payment of those fees.The draft Delegated Regulation: Article 1 lays down the general principles the EBA should follow when calculating and collecting fees related to the performance of its validation function. Article 2 specifies how the EBA should estimate its annual overall costs related to the performance of its validation function. Article 3 specifies how counterparties should calculate their average notional amount for the purpose of the determination of the fees to be paid for the validation of the pro forma models they use. Article 4 specifies the fees to be paid by counterparties on a regular basis. Article 5 specifies the fees to be paid by counterparties using a pro forma model already in use prior to the entry into force of EMIR 3. Article 6 specifies the fees to be paid in the first years following the introduction and the application for validation of a new pro forma model. Article 7 provides for the general modalities of payment of the EBA fees. Article 8 specifies the information to be communicated to the EBA for the purpose of the determination of the EBA fees. Article 9 lays down the date of entry into force of the delegated act Next stepsThe deadline for comments on the consultation is 12 March 2026.The draft Delegated Regulation enters into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

On 12 February 2026, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued an opinion advising Member State competent authorities (NCAs) under the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) on how to proceed once the transition period that is set in the EBA’s No-Action letter of 10 June 2025 comes to an end on 2 March 2026.BackgroundOn 10 June 2025, the EBA issued a No-Action letter in the form of an Opinion, in which it provided advice to NCAs designated as competent under the PSD2 on the interplay between the PSD2 and the Regulation on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) with regard to the authorisation and supervision of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) that carry out transactions using electronic money tokens (EMTs).Since the publication of the No-Action letter more than 100 CASPs have approached NCAs informally or have submitted an application for authorisation as payment service providers (PSPs). Given that the transition period in the No-Action letter is limited to nine months (to minimise the time during which unauthorised entities could provide payment services in the EU) the EBA is issuing this latest Opinion to advise NCAs how to prioritise their authorisation efforts when the transition period ends on 2 March 2026.ScenariosThe Opinion describes three scenarios which may arise for a given CASP under MiCA (or for the purpose of the Opinion: an entity that benefits from one of the national transitional regimes to which MiCA refers) that intends to continue carrying out EMT transactions that qualify as a payment service.One scenario is where the CASP has successfully obtained an authorisation as a payment institution/electronic money institution or has partnered with a PSP authorised to provide the respective services, in which case the CASP is allowed to continue carrying out EMT transactions in a way commensurate with its PSP authorisation (or, respectively, the authorisation of the partner PSP). The Opinion states that in order to meet the PSD2 requirements, a CASP would need either to obtain authorisation to provide payment services itself, or for example to act as an agent of a PSP that is authorised to provide the respective payment services. In the latter case, NCAs are advised to assess whether the partner PSP requires authorisation under Article 59 of MiCA.The Opinion also adds that, when assessing whether CASPs require authorisation under PSD2, NCAs are reminded that the execution of transfers involving EMTs may qualify as a payment service (for example payment service 3 of Annex I to PSD2 (execution of payment transactions)), regardless of whether the custodial wallets offered by the CASP qualify as payment accounts.

On 11 February 2026, the European Commission issued a targeted consultation on the competitiveness of the EU banking sector.In the Commission Communication on the Savings and Investments Union it was mentioned that the Commission would publish in 2026 a report assessing the overall situation of the banking system in the Single Market, including the evaluation of the banking sector’s competitiveness.The consultation is seeking stakeholder feedback on the following areas which will inform the Commission’s work to achieve a Single Market in banking: Banking competitiveness in the EU and globally. The consultation asks questions on the competitiveness of banks themselves and driving factors, competition in the banking markets, both within the EU and globally, cross-border activity, international level playing field, the role of banks in capital markets and the importance of digitalisation in driving competitiveness. The Single Market and the Banking Union. The consultation seeks stakeholders’ feedback on the drivers and barriers to market integration in the banking sector, and on the current design and potential outstanding features of the banking union. Complexity and effectiveness of the regulatory framework. The Commission notes that banking regulation is complex for many reasons reflecting a multitude of considerations including risk sensitivity, robustness, cost efficiency, as well as the diverse nature of banks operating in the EU (cooperatives, universal banks, etc). The consultation seeks stakeholders’ views regarding the level of complexity in the EU banking regulatory and supervisory framework and its effectiveness. This includes undue sources of complexity in the prudential framework. Next stepsThe deadline for comments on the consultation is 19 April 2026.

On 12 February 2026, the Bank of England (BoE) published a Policy Statement, Bank Resolution Standards Instrument: The Technical Standards (COREP13) Instrument 2026.BackgroundThe Policy Statement follows an earlier consultation issued last September on the partial revocation of the UK Technical Standards (UKTS) 2018/1624 on resolution reporting (COREP13). It is relevant to institutions and UK parent undertakings subject to the requirement to annually submit COREP13 reporting to the BoE.The COREP13 UKTS sets out technical standards specifying procedures and a minimum set of standard templates for providing information to the resolution authority for the purposes of drawing up and implementing individual and group resolution plans in accordance with Articles 37(3A) and 40(4A) of the Bank Recovery and Resolution (No 2) Order 2014 (No. 2 Order). Under the No. 2 Order, the BoE, as the UK’s resolution authority, may determine which UK resolution entities and UK resolution groups are subject to resolution reporting requirements.Final rulesIn the Policy Statement the BoE confirms that it is implementing its proposals as consulted on by deleting reporting templates Z 02.00, Z 03.00, Z 04.00, Z 05.01, Z 05.02 and Z 06.00 from COREP13 UKTS.Next stepsThe changes will be effective from 1 April 2026.Notwithstanding their deletion, due to temporary systems limitations, the templates may remain in the BoE’s RegData reporting system for some time after their revocation date. At present, firms are requested to use negative filing indicators for the six deleted reporting templates. The BoE expects to remove the deleted templates from the RegData reporting system in due course, thereby eliminating the need for firms to report negative filing indicators for these templates.

On 10 February 2026, the Australian Treasury (Treasury) published a consultation paper titled Enhancing oversight and governance of managed investment schemes which seeks feedback on proposals to strengthen governance, compliance and regulatory oversight of registered managed investment schemes (MISs) in Australia.BackgroundApproximately $2 trillion is currently invested in MISs, with 3,587 schemes registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) as at 30 June 2025.Policy problemThe collapses of MISs causes significant financial and non-financial harm to investors and recent events have highlighted the need for reform.The consultation paper considers several reform options to enhance the governance and oversight of registered MISs.Summary of proposalsProposal 1: Enhance the regulatory framework for compliance: Treasury proposes to: (a) introduce stricter compliance requirements, such as requiring a detailed description of the nature of the scheme and its investment strategy, and information outlining how significant risks will be identified, monitored and managed; (b) amend the liability framework for compliance plans, such that liability attaches only to material contraventions of a plan, to incentivise higher quality plans; (c) make existing audit and assurance standards mandatory for compliance plan auditors; and (d) require responsible entities to notify ASIC of appointment, removal or resignation of compliance committee members. Currently, liability attaches to any contravention of a compliance plan, which ASIC considers encourages generic plans with low standards. Limiting liability to material contraventions is intended to incentivise higher quality, more detailed plans.Proposal 2: Require a majority of external directors on the boards of responsible entities: Responsible entities would be required to have a majority of external directors on their boards, removing the option of establishing a mandatory compliance committee as an alternative. This aligns with the existing requirement for retail corporate collective investment vehicles.Proposal 3: Prohibit responsible entities of registered MISs from conducting related party transactions, with limited exceptions: Responsible entities would be prohibited from conducting related party transactions, with limited exceptions for legitimate business structures.Proposal 4: Amend the framework for setting financial requirements for responsible entities: Treasury is seeking feedback on whether more specific financial resource requirements should be imposed on responsible entities and whether these should be set in primary legislation rather than being set by ASIC.Proposal 5: Increase ASIC’s data collection powers on the retail MIS sector: New recurrent data collection powers would enhance ASIC’s ability to identify misconduct and scheme risk factors in the retail MIS sector. This proposal would enable ASIC to collect recurrent data on trends and flows, which, combined with event-based reporting, would improve ASIC’s ability to detect misconduct or other scheme risk factors.Proposal 6: Alerts to ASIC about superannuation switching: Place an obligation on superannuation trustees to report to ASIC suspicious or anomalous patterns of behaviour, which the trustee reasonably considers could place their membership at risk of significant detriment.Next StepsThe deadline for comments on the consultation is 27 February 2026.Stakeholders may submit responses via Treasury’s website.

On 11 February 2026, there was published in the Official Journal of the EU (OJ), Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/323 of 29 October 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/805 as regards fees for the supervision by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of benchmark administrators endorsing third-country benchmarks. The Commission Delegated Regulation updates Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/805 to include supervisory fees for the new category of benchmark administrators under the supervision of ESMA, i.e. EU administrators that endorse third country benchmarks. It enters into force on the day following its publication in the OJ (12 February 2026).