Investment Funds Update

UK/EU Investment Management Update (November 2026)

著者

Leonard NgJess Ward-ZinskiFlorence Barnes

In this Sidley Update, we cover on the UK side the findings of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) multi-firm review of conflicts of interest in private markets, the FCA’s consultation on Phase 2 of its reforms to the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, Market Watch 86 on market abuse surveillance, proposed updates to the FCA Financial Crime Guide, the move of fund authorisation applications and notifications to the FCA’s Connect system, publications by the FCA and the Bank of England on the use of artificial intelligence, FCA consultations on cryptoasset perimeter guidance and decentralised finance, and key tax points from the Autumn Budget 2026 for investment managers. On the EU side, we cover the latest on the review of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) thematic notes on sustainability-related claims, the European Supervisory Authorities’ 2027 work programme, ESMA’s revised guidelines on delaying the disclosure of inside information under the EU Market Abuse Regulation and its annual report on suspicious transaction and order reports, an ESMA opinion on stablecoins that do not comply with the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, and updates under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation.

1. UK - Private Markets Review
2. UK - SMCR
3. UK - Market Abuse
4. UK - Financial Crime
5. UK - Artificial Intelligence
6. UK - Cryptoassets
7. UK - Authorised Funds
8. UK - Tax
9. EU - Market Abuse
10. EU - Sustainable Finance
11. EU - ESAs
12. EU - Cryptoassets

13. EU - EMIR

1. UK - Private Markets Review

FCA publishes multi-firm review on conflicts of interest in private markets

On 23 October 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the findings of its multi-firm review, Conflicts of Interest and Fair Customer Treatment in Private Markets. The FCA noted that its review is particularly relevant for asset managers, alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs), and investment advisers operating in private markets.

The review covered firms managing funds or providing portfolio management and/or advisory services in the UK involving private equity, private credit, and real estate assets. The FCA assessed their arrangements against SYSC 10, COLL 8.5.7, COBS 2.3A.8R, COBS 11.7, and COBS 11.7A.

Key findings

The FCA found that many firms demonstrated effective governance and a clear focus on investor outcomes, but standards varied considerably and governance and controls did not always keep pace with business growth and complexity. Weaker firms relied heavily on first-line judgement or used fragmented frameworks. The most effective firms embedded controls throughout the investment lifecycle, maintained comprehensive conflict inventories, undertook independent periodic reviews, and set clear escalation thresholds, including engagement with limited partners where appropriate.

The FCA also made observations in relation to non-UK managers with UK affiliates that are authorised as an investment adviser or arranger (e.g., a UK sub-adviser to a U.S. manager). The review found that some firms characterised their UK activities as investment advisory only because formal investment decisions were taken by overseas entities. However, in certain cases, the FCA considered that the UK conflicts framework was narrowly scoped and did not reflect the substance of the activities undertaken by UK-based staff, who were often involved in significant parts of the investment lifecycle. The FCA considers good practice to be a framework that reflects the substance of the activity, not merely its legal form.

Recurring areas of concern included the following:

Cross-fund transfers and continuation transactions. Weaker frameworks relied on existing governance processes, disclosure, or investor consent, with limited evidence of how competing investor interests had been assessed and balanced.
Gifts and entertainment. Weaker practice relied on policy thresholds and generic approvals, without monitoring patterns over time.
Information barriers. Weaker controls relied on training and informal safeguards, with limited compliance monitoring.

The report also sets out detailed findings on allocation, connected and multi-party transactions, investor alignment, most-favoured-nation clauses and side letters, and disclosures.

FCA expectations on next steps

The FCA expects firms to consider the findings, identify gaps in their approach, and consider whether to take action to:

keep conflict identification responsive to changes in their business, such as group structures, ownership arrangements, and investment strategies;
ensure that governance and controls remain proportionate to the nature, scale, and complexity of their activities, taking account of the substance of their UK activities;
set clear escalation thresholds and accountable owners for material conflicts; and
be able to demonstrate how they addressed material conflicts fairly and in investors’ interests.

The FCA will carry out targeted follow-up work where appropriate.

2. UK - SMCR

FCA consults on Phase 2 of SMCR reforms

On 22 October 2026, the FCA published Consultation Paper CP26/37 on a second package of reforms to streamline the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). CP26/37 builds on the first phase of reforms, which the FCA finalised in Policy Statement PS26/6 in April 2026 (see our May 2026 Update).

CP26/37 is relevant to all firms in scope of the SMCR, including third-country branches, and to new firms due to come into regulatory scope, such as cryptoasset firms. The proposals of most relevance to investment managers are as follows.

Senior Managers Regime

Fewer Senior Management Functions (SMFs) requiring FCA approval. SMF18 (Other Overall Responsibility) and SMF22 (Local Responsibility) are proposed for removal from the regime. In addition, a range of SMFs for dual-regulated and Enhanced firms will no longer be subject to approval by the FCA; a firm will simply need to notify the FCA. Note that all of these functions typically do not apply to investment management firms in the private funds space.
Higher Enhanced thresholds. Fewer firms would be classified as Enhanced; the assets under management threshold would rise from £65 billion to £100 billion.
No ongoing submission of SoRs and MRMs. Firms would no longer need to submit updated Statements of Responsibilities (SoRs) and Management Responsibilities Maps (MRMs) to the FCA but would still need to keep both up to date internally.
Fewer Prescribed Responsibilities. Nine Prescribed Responsibilities would be removed and four retained.
No MiFID management body reporting. Solo-regulated Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID) investment firms and MiFID optional exemption firms would no longer need to report details of their management body, and changes to it, in SMF and authorisation applications or under SUP 15.
Longer temporary cover. Firms would have 18 weeks rather than 12 to submit an SMF application or notification for an individual temporarily covering a Senior Manager role.

Certification Regime and Conduct Rules

Certification Regime removed. The Certification Regime would be removed, together with the requirement to obtain regulatory references for previously certified persons, and the Directory of certified and assessed persons would be retired.
Notification instead of training. The Conduct Rules training requirement would be replaced with an obligation to notify staff of the Conduct Rules that apply to them and the consequences of a breach.
Higher breach reporting threshold. For most non-SMF staff, only disciplinary action resulting in a final written warning or dismissal would need to be reported.

The consultation closes on 22 January 2027. The FCA expects to publish final rules in a policy statement in H1 2027 and to implement them at the end of 2027.

3. UK - Market Abuse

FCA publishes Market Watch 86 on market abuse surveillance at retail brokers

On 14 October 2026, the FCA published Market Watch 86, its newsletter on market conduct and transaction reporting issues. This edition sets out the FCA’s observations from supervisory visits to retail brokerage firms on their systems and governance for identifying and reporting potential market abuse under the UK Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR).

While the findings are drawn from firms serving predominantly retail clients, the FCA notes that they may be relevant to other firms. Key findings include the following:

Reasonable suspicion. Under Article 16(2) UK MAR, a firm must submit a suspicious transaction and order report (STOR) without delay where it has a reasonable suspicion of market abuse. Several firms applied too high a threshold, and some procedures steered analysts towards closing alerts rather than weighing all aggravating and mitigating factors. Firms with well-documented review and escalation procedures, clearly defined roles, and formalised analyst training showed more consistent decision-making.
Alert calibration. Alert models should be calibrated to the firm’s business model and risk profile, including its client base, instruments traded, and relevant market abuse risks. The FCA found calibrations that were not suitably tailored and staff responsible for surveillance who could not explain how their systems worked, in some cases relying on vendors’ out-of-the-box settings.
Governance and oversight. Some senior managers had a limited understanding of alert triage, investigations, escalation, and calibration. Firms whose quality assurance covered analyst decision-making throughout the alert review and escalation process were better able to identify trends and errors.

The FCA states that firms should consider the points made in Market Watch 86 and whether their surveillance arrangements need to change. For the FCA’s earlier observations on market abuse surveillance in Market Watch 79, see our June 2024 Update.

4. UK - Financial Crime

FCA consults on updates to the Financial Crime Guide

On 23 October 2026, the FCA published Consultation Paper CP26/38 on updates to its Financial Crime Guide (FCG), reflecting insights from its supervisory work and wider developments. The FCG does not impose new requirements, but the FCA expects firms to familiarise themselves with the updates. The proposed changes include, among others:

Money laundering and terrorist financing. Updates reflecting industry practice on electronic verification, third-party tools, and outsourcing. Examples of poor practice for managers active in private markets include having no formal process for verifying ultimate beneficial owners in multi-layered or offshore structures and outsourcing customer due diligence without oversight.
Sanctions and proliferation financing. The guidance would cover trade sanctions alongside financial sanctions, reflecting the establishment of the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, and would include enhanced guidance on proliferation financing risks and controls.
Data security. The guidance would be updated to address current cyber risks, data protection legislation, and emerging risks associated with AI, synthetic identity fraud, and digital assets.
Other changes. These include new guidance for firms seeking authorisation under the cryptoasset regime that applies from 25 October 2027 and changes reflecting the amendments to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs) that came into force in June 2026.

The consultation closes on 24 December 2026.

5. UK - Artificial Intelligence

FCA publishes good practice and areas for improvement on AI use in financial services

On 19 October 2026, the FCA published its statement AI in Financial Services: Good Practice and Areas for Improvement. The statement sets out examples of good practice and areas for improvement in firms’ use of AI, drawing on industry engagement, supervisory work, and the FCA’s AI Lab initiatives. The examples are grouped under three themes: the Consumer Duty and consumers in vulnerable circumstances; governance and accountability; and operational resilience. The points of most relevance to investment managers:

Governance and accountability. Firms should apply proportionate, risk-based oversight and clear accountability across the AI lifecycle. Good practice includes human oversight with defined escalation triggers, multidisciplinary governance supported by continuous monitoring, and senior managers who are accountable for AI systems and take reasonable steps to mitigate the associated risks.
Operational resilience. Firms should adopt AI systems and architecture suited to the sensitivity and security requirements of each use case, reflect dependencies on AI models in their operational resilience planning, mitigate cyber risk and over-reliance on particular models or third-party providers, and manage third-party relationships proactively.

The FCA states that the examples are illustrative and non-exhaustive, do not create new requirements or prescribe a single model, and do not replace firms’ responsibility for deciding what is appropriate and proportionate for their own AI use cases.

BoE and FCA publish findings of fourth survey on AI in UK financial services

On 26 October 2026, the Bank of England (BoE) and the FCA published a joint report, Artificial Intelligence in UK Financial Services — 2026. Investment and capital markets firms, including asset and fund managers, accounted for 100 of the 196 respondents. The report does not set new rules or supervisory expectations. Key findings include the following:

Generative AI and agents. Generative AI accounted for 56% of reported AI systems, and 80% of respondents had deployed AI agents, mostly with limited autonomy for decision support.
Third parties. Third-party AI systems had become more prevalent and more material, with a high degree of concentration among cloud and compute providers. Oversight of third-party AI systems was the most commonly cited area of governance uncertainty.
Risks and constraints. The highest-rated perceived risks were data protection and security, third-party and supply chain risk, and risks specific to generative AI. The main perceived regulatory constraints were UK data protection law and international regulation, such as the EU AI Act.
Frontier AI. 88% of respondents expected frontier AI cyber capabilities to have a moderate or high impact on their risk profile over the next two years.

6. UK - Cryptoassets

FCA consults on further perimeter guidance for cryptoasset activities

On 21 October 2026, the FCA published Consultation Paper CP26/36 on proposed amendments to Chapter 18 of its Perimeter Guidance manual to reflect changes made to the forthcoming UK cryptoasset regime by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026, which, among other things, introduce exclusions for certain regulated cryptoasset activities. The proposed guidance covers the following:

Technology-neutral perimeter. The use of smart contracts, software, or distributed governance does not of itself determine whether a person is carrying on a regulated activity.
Exclusions. How the revised and new exclusions interact with regulated cryptoasset activities, namely (i) safeguarding exclusions for temporary settlement arrangements and UK qualifying stablecoins; (ii) exclusions for proprietary dealing and market making in qualifying cryptoassets; and (iii) an exclusion for technical service providers.
Qualifying stablecoins. Guidance on the new sub-category of “UK qualifying stablecoin”.

The consultation closes on 18 November 2026, and the FCA intends to publish final guidance in spring 2027. The FCA’s application window for the new regulated cryptoasset activities opened on 30 September 2026 and closes on 28 February 2027; managers that deal in or hold qualifying cryptoassets should consider whether the proposed exclusions affect their need for permissions under the new regime.

FCA consults on guidance on decentralised finance

On 21 October 2026, the FCA published Guidance Consultation GC26/7 on proposed non-Handbook guidance on decentralised finance (DeFi). The FCA notes that although DeFi may support innovation and efficiency, firms using it to deliver financial services must achieve the same regulatory outcomes as in traditional financial services.

The draft guidance does not create new requirements. It explains how existing operational resilience and financial crime requirements may apply where firms provide financial services using DeFi and is addressed to FCA-regulated firms that interact with or use DeFi and are subject to SYSC 15A (Operational resilience), SYSC 6 (Compliance, internal audit, and financial crime) or the MLRs. Comments are invited by 18 November 2026, and the FCA plans to publish final guidance in Q1 2027.

7. UK - Authorised Funds

FCA moves fund authorisation applications and notifications to Connect

On 6 October 2026, the FCA published a webpage setting out its plans to move fund authorisation applications and notifications, which firms currently submit by email, to its Connect system, with fully digital forms to follow over the next two to three years. The FCA does not expect to change content requirements significantly at this stage.

In early 2027, the FCA plans to move certain applications and notifications under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) to Connect. All other submissions should continue to follow the current process.

8. UK - Tax

Autumn Budget 2026: key points for investment managers

John Healey delivered his first Budget as Chancellor on 28 October. Briefings had indicated that no major tax reforms should be expected, and this was generally the case, with the Chancellor opting instead to focus on more limited changes to allowances and reliefs. However, the more detailed documents published alongside the Budget included responses to several previously published His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) consultations, together with an announcement on intended changes to the UK taxation of sovereign investors.

1) A response from HMRC on the LLC consultation has been published

Following stakeholder responses to its consultation earlier this year (covered in our August 2026 Update), HMRC has confirmed an intended route forward in relieving the double tax issues for UK resident individuals caused as a result of certain “reverse hybrid” entities, opting to introduce a new credit relief mechanism expected to be available to taxpayers from 2028.

By way of recap, reverse hybrids are entities that are treated as transparent for tax purposes in one jurisdiction (similarly to partnerships) but as opaque in another (similarly to companies). This mismatch in tax treatment can create double taxation issues for UK investors, who may be taxed overseas on the underlying profits of the entity but taxed in the UK on distributions received, without being able to obtain effective credit for the overseas tax paid.

The original consultation proposed that in certain limited circumstances, reverse hybrid entities such as Delaware limited liability corporations (LLCs) would be treated as transparent for UK tax purposes (where otherwise they would have been considered opaque). However, following receipt of consultation responses, HMRC has instead determined the best route forward would be to offer a credit relief to individuals suffering double tax as a result of an entity’s reverse hybrid status. It has also been suggested that legislation will be passed to confirm certain entities as corporates/opaque for UK tax purposes, which would include U.S. LLCs, U.S. S-Corps, Jersey LLCs ,and French société civile immobilières.

The proposed statutory clarification would be particularly welcome, resolving an area of long-standing uncertainty in UK tax law. However, much will depend on the detailed design of the legislation, and it will be important to ensure that the new relief adequately addresses the double taxation issues experienced by affected taxpayers. HMRC will now open a second consultation on these issues to consider in more detail how the proposed relief should work.

2) HMRC confirms the plan to go ahead with changes to the distributions code

As covered in our August 2026 Update, this summer HMRC consulted on wide-ranging changes to rules taxing distributions taken by owners from their companies. A point of particular concern to the investment management industry was that these changes would result in proceeds of share buybacks/repurchases in non-UK companies being taxed as income rather than capital gain. This could have significant consequences for UK investors in investment funds, with returns on their investments potentially becoming subject to income tax rather than capital gains tax even where those returns derive from underlying capital gains.

Although the government plans to proceed with the changes, the consultation response indicates an intention to carve out asset managers from these rules to enable “genuine investment returns” in fund structures to continue to be taxed as they are currently, stating the commitment to maintain the UK’s competitiveness as a fund management industry hub.

HMRC will further consult on the conditions that should be imposed to access this exemption, and the Sidley team will engage further on this phase of the consultation process. Please do get in touch with us if you would like to discuss this further.

3) HMRC announce plan to codify scope of sovereign immunity from UK tax

Sovereign immunity from UK tax has never been set out within UK legislation, instead being implemented through HMRC administrative practice, based on principles of international law. HMRC abandoned an attempt to codify these principles in 2023 but has now launched a new consultation to again consider these issues.

The proposal is that sovereigns will retain many of their current exemptions from UK direct tax, other than on income and gains from UK real estate and from a UK trade (which will exclude income from UK investment management activities). The new regime will include a set of rules to enable sovereigns holding a controlling interest in a REIT through a UK company to access a 15% tax rate on property income distributions received by those holding companies.

The first round of the consultation is open until January, with further consultation on draft legislation to follow. The changes are expected to be implemented with effect from 1 January 2029.

9. EU - Market Abuse

ESMA finalises revised MAR guidelines on delaying the disclosure of inside information

On 16 October 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its final report on revised guidelines on the delay in the disclosure of inside information under Article 17 MAR (the MAR Guidelines), which list legitimate interests that may justify an issuer delaying disclosure. The review follows the EU Listing Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/2809), under which, from 5 June 2026, issuers need not disclose intermediate steps in a protracted process before completion (see our Sidley Updates of November 2024 and June 2025).

Following consultation, ESMA has added five legitimate interests:

(i) compliance with a confidentiality order from a public authority of a Member State, the EU, or a third country;

(ii) collecting further information on an exceptional event, such as a cyber-attack, for only as long as strictly necessary;

(iii) avoiding the loss of a concrete business opportunity, including in private competitive processes;

(iv) key appointments, where a new governing body member or key manager has not yet informed their current employer (applying only to the formal appointment decision); and

(v) protecting a delay by another group company, which is not an automatic group-wide interest.

ESMA reiterates that legitimate interests are to be interpreted restrictively and are only one of the three conditions for delay under Article 17(4) MAR. The MAR Guidelines are aimed at issuers (including listed funds and listed asset managers) rather than at managers in their capacity as investors and will apply from their publication on ESMA’s website in all official EU languages.

ESMA publishes fourth annual report on STORs

On 14 October 2026, ESMA published its report on STORs, focussing mainly on 2025 data, to give the market an overview of how STORs are used across EU jurisdictions. Key findings include the following:

National competent authorities (NCAs) received 7,179 notifications in 2025 (6,324 STORs and 855 other notifications), an increase of around 6% on 2024. As in previous years, most notifications (76%) originated from investment firms, and 815 investment firms submitted at least one STOR, compared with 659 in 2024.
Suspected insider dealing accounted for 53% of notifications and market manipulation for 45%. Insider dealing has been the largest category since 2023, after market manipulation accounted for the majority between 2019 and 2022.
By instrument type, shares accounted for 86% of notifications, followed by derivatives (6%).

10. EU - Sustainable Finance

Council publishes table comparing the institutions’ positions on SFDR 2.0

On 12 October 2026, the Council of the EU (the Council) published a note containing a three-column table comparing the positions of the European Commission (the Commission), the European Parliament (the Parliament), and the Council on the proposal to amend the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and the Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products Regulation (PRIIPs Regulation), known as SFDR 2.0.

None of the positions in the table represents agreed law. Trilogue negotiations are ongoing and will determine the final text. The table nonetheless provides a useful overview of the direction of travel. For details of the Commission’s proposal of 20 November 2025, see our Sidley Update SFDR 2.0: Five Key Takeaways From the European Commission’s Proposal for Revising the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation.

ESMA publishes thematic notes on impact and transition claims

On 12 October 2026, ESMA published a thematic note on impact claims and published a second thematic note on transition claims about climate change mitigation, as part of its series on clear, fair, and not misleading sustainability-related claims. ESMA clarified that the notes are educational, do not create new regulatory requirements, and relate to non-regulatory communications, such as marketing material and voluntary reporting.

Impact claims. ESMA understands targeting positive impact as seeking financial returns while also making a real difference for the environment and/or society and treats as impact claims any statements that explicitly or implicitly refer to “impact,” “positive change,” or equivalent terms. Market participants understand positive impact differently and attach different levels of ambition to their claims. ESMA expects claims to be sufficiently substantiated, with a clear explanation of the type of impact sought, in particular whether it is investee impact, investor impact, or both.
Transition claims. Transition claims often relate to the gradual improvement of the climate performance of companies, assets, or activities towards a climate-neutral economy. ESMA acknowledges that such claims are forward-looking and uncertain but states that this does not reduce the need to communicate them in a clear, fair, and not misleading manner.

Both notes set out practical do’s and don’ts, illustrated by examples of good and poor practice that ESMA observed across funds, bonds, and (for transition claims) benchmarks, and remind market participants of ESMA’s four principles that sustainability claims should be accurate, accessible, substantiated, and up to date.

11. EU - ESAs

ESAs’ Joint Committee publishes 2027 Work Programme

On 13 October 2026, the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), comprising the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and ESMA, published its Annual Work Programme for 2027 (the Work Programme), setting out its priorities for cross-sectoral work in 2027 in the context of the EU simplification and burden-reduction agenda. Points of interest for investment managers include the following:

Digital operational resilience. The ESAs will continue to operate the oversight framework for critical information and communication technology (ICT) third-party service providers (CTPPs) under the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), including updating the list of designated CTPPs, and will provide technical advice to the Commission on a potential legislative proposal arising from the DORA review.
PRIIPs KID. The ESAs expect to draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implementing technical standards (ITS) under proposed amendments to the PRIIPs Regulation, with a view to simplifying the key information document (KID), in particular its performance and cost sections. The RTS deadline may fall in 2028.
SFDR. While SFDR 2.0 proceeds (see above), the ESAs will, if required, deliver technical standards or advice (possibly including consumer testing) and will continue to monitor application of the existing SFDR obligations.
Securitisation. The ESAs have begun preparatory work on RTS and ITS on transparency arising from the Commission’s June 2025 proposals to amend the Securitisation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/2402) (see our Sidley Update Proposed Reform of EU Securitization Regulation: Implications for U.S. Securitizations) and will strengthen convergence in supervision by NCAs. They will also monitor third-party risk financing for collateralised loan obligations and potential divergence from the U.S. and UK regimes. The Work Programme states that trilogues commenced in June 2026, with implementation expected in Q1/Q2 2027.

12. EU - Cryptoassets

ESMA publishes opinion on services relating to non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins

On 8 October 2026, ESMA published an opinion clarifying its supervisory expectations for cryptoasset services involving asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens (stablecoins) that do not comply with the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA). ESMA considers that cryptoasset service providers (CASPs) authorised under MiCA should stop providing services relating to non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins to clients in the EU across the full range of MiCA services, including exchange services, order execution, placing, portfolio management, and investment advice.

ESMA called on NCAs to ensure that CASPs put in place appropriate controls to prevent non-MiCA-compliant stablecoins being available in the EU and to require any legacy exposures to be remediated no later than three months after publication of the opinion. Accordingly, managers that access stablecoins through EU CASPs should expect services relating to non-compliant stablecoins to be withdrawn.

13. EU - EMIR

ESMA publishes final reports on draft RTS under EMIR 3

On 20 October 2026, ESMA published a final report on draft RTS setting out the requirements that post-trade risk reduction (PTRR) services must meet for resulting transactions to be exempt from the clearing obligation under Article 4b European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), as introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3). The requirements principally affect PTRR service providers. ESMA submitted the draft RTS to the Commission on 9 October 2026.

On 19 October 2026, ESMA also published a final report on draft RTS amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013 in relation to guarantees as central counterparty (CCP) collateral and certain aspects of CCP investment policy. Article 46 EMIR, as amended by EMIR 3, widens the types of guarantee that CCPs may accept as collateral and the persons who may use them: Public bank guarantees are now expressly recognised, and all non-financial counterparties may use uncollateralised guarantees.

In each case, the Commission has three months from submission to decide whether to endorse the draft RTS, after which any adopted RTS will be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament and the Council.

弁護士広告—Sidley Austin LLP はグローバルな法律事務所です。当事務所の所在地および連絡先情報は、www.sidley.com/en/locations/offices に掲載されています。

Sidley は、本情報をクライアントおよび関係者の皆様へのサービスとして、教育目的のみに提供しています。本情報は、法的助言として解釈または依拠されるべきものではなく、また弁護士と依頼者の関係を生じさせるものでもありません。読者は、専門家の助言を求めることなく本情報に基づいて行動すべきではありません。Sidley および Sidley Austin とは、www.sidley.com/disclaimer に記載のとおり、Sidley Austin LLP およびその関連パートナーシップを指します。