Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF and the ACPR warn the public against the activities of several entities offering investments in Forex and in crypto-assets derivatives in France without being authorized to do so

1.1 Fri 29/10/2021 - 12:00 Reference texts article 223-1 du règlement général de l’AMF Book 1 Recommendation Closing of the 2021 financial statements and financial statements examination work Closing of the 2021…

Speech by Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, delivered at the International Bar Association (IBA) Anti-Corruption Conference. I’ve been practising law for over 3 decades now.Starting out, I thought every case would be like the ones on US television: dramatic, with a big reveal and resounding outcome, all packed into a single 30-minute episode. But real law looks nothing like television. Hollywood doesn’t show the months, if not years, of work before we even step into a courtroom. Or the drawn-out disclosure exercises!Like many of you, I have had cases that led to high-profile trials and newspaper headlines. Cases that exposed wrongdoing and visibly held people accountable, like:Fining Nationwide £44m for anti-money laundering failings.Securing €250m for investors from H2O Asset Management for their due diligence failures – and trying to conceal them.Another 7-figure fine and a ban for former Barclays CEO Jes Staley, who tried to mislead us about the nature of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.And convicting the Korfuzi siblings of insider trading, with a combined 11-year prison sentence.Although these cases took time, they were the right response – the kind that keep the system clean and build trust.But running alongside this is work that, while less obvious, matters just as much: the quiet prevention of harm. Every day, our teams are monitoring market integrity.Looking for a sign that something is wrong, long before it becomes visible to anyone else.Reviewing financial promotions and taking down misleading adverts before they reach consumers.And working alongside firms to help them deliver good customer outcomes.This kind of work is perpetual. And largely invisible. Let me give you an example.A life sciences company was attempting to raise funding.When we reviewed the prospectus, we realised it resembled a pump-and-dump scheme we were tracking that had already targeted other UK securities.The proposed structure would have concentrated shares in the hands of a few bad actors, who could artificially inflate the share price through misleading online ads.They would then cash out at the peak, leaving consumers exposed when the price suddenly collapsed.So we stepped in and put a pause on approval.Soon after, the company announced it was ending the fundraising entirely. We had cut harm off at the root.And yet… there was no press release. No headline.Does that concern you? Or does it reassure you?

NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE FSMA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE ROYAL DECREE OF 27 APRIL 2007 ON PUBLIC TAKEOVER BIDSThe FSMA hereby publishes, pursuant to Article 7 of the Royal Decree of 27 April 2007 on public takeover bids (the “Takeover Decree”), the notice which it received on 15 June 2026 in accordance with Article 5 of the Takeover Decree concerning the intention of Gramo BV, a private limited liability company under Belgian law, having its registered office at Vlaanderenstraat 2, 8800 Roeselare, and registered with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (RLE Ghent, division Kortrijk) under enterprise number 0808.448.676 (the “Bidder” or “Gramo”), to launch a mandatory public takeover bid in cash (the “Offer”) for all securities with voting rights or giving access to voting rights issued by Deceuninck NV, a public limited liability company under Belgian law, having its registered office at Bruggesteenweg 360, 8830 Hooglede, and registered with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (RLE Ghent, division Kortrijk) under enterprise number 0405.548.486, whose shares are listed on Euronext Brussels (ISIN: BE0003789063) (“Deceuninck”), which are not already held by the Bidder or its affiliated persons.As at the announcement date pursuant to Article 8 of the Takeover Decree on 9 June 2026, the Bidder, together with its affiliated persons, held 41,558,930 shares (or 29.99%) of Deceuninck.The obligation to launch a mandatory public takeover bid results from the acquisition of 1,050,000 additional shares on 11 June 2026, following the exercise of 1,050,000 warrants. The total participation held by the Bidder (and its affiliated persons) thereby amounts to 42,608,930 shares (or 30.52%). The Offer relates to all securities with voting rights or giving access to voting rights of Deceuninck that, as at the date of the notification, are not yet held by the Bidder or its affiliated persons, being, at the date of this notice, a total of 96,986,330 shares (or 69.48%).The Offer is made at a price of EUR 2.11 per share. Deceuninck has issued 5,369,940 outstanding warrants, which are non-transferable and some of which are non-exercisable. The valuation of these securities will be included in the prospectus.The Offer is unconditional.The Bidder has no intention to voluntarily reopen the Offer or to reopen it in the form of a simplified squeeze-out offer within the meaning of Articles 42 and 43 juncto 57 of the Takeover Decree. 

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat den Anhang der Verordnung vom 10. April 2024 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Organisationen, welche die Hamas oder den Palästinensischen Islamischen Dschihad unterstützen (SR 946.231.09), geändert.

on 21 may 2026, the court of justice of the european union (cjeu) delivered two significant sets of judgments addressing the interaction between trust structures and, respectively, eu restrictive measures and anti-money laundering transparency obligations. taken together, these rulings reinforce the eu's substance-over-form approach to financial regulation and carry important implications for trustees, fiduciary service providers, and compliance professionals across the member states. freezing of assets held through trusts: case c-483/23 (t trust) and joined cases c-428/24 and c-476/24 the first set of judgments arose from three italian references for a preliminary ruling concerning the freezing of funds and economic resources linked, indirectly through trust arrangements, to persons designated under eu restrictive measures adopted in response to russia's military aggression against ukraine. in each case, assets were held through trusts established under the laws of bermuda, and the italian authorities imposed freezing measures notwithstanding that the trust instruments purported to bar any transfer to, or control by, the sanctioned individuals. the cjeu held that the concepts of "belonging to" and of "control" within the meaning of article 2 of council regulation (eu) no 269/2014 must be interpreted broadly, so as to encompass all forms of power or influence exercised over funds and economic resources, including in the absence of any formal legal link between the assets and the designated person. assets may therefore be regarded as belonging to, or being under the control of, a settlor or beneficiary of a trust where those persons retain the power to use, benefit from, or dispose of such resources, or to exert influence over the decisions made by the trustee in relation to them, or indeed if they are or can exert such influence over other power-holders.. the cjeu emphasised that this interpretation is consistent with the purpose of asset-freezing provisions, which is to limit as far as possible the transactions that may be carried out with the assets concerned, and with the overarching objective of restrictive measures, namely the protection of ukraine's territorial integrity and the maintenance of international peace and security. critically, the cjeu noted that indications of belonging or control may be inferred from factual circumstances, such as the relationships between the beneficiary or settlor and other persons involved in the trust, such as the trustee and other power-holders, or the allocation of economic resources to activities intended primarily for the benefit of the designated person, as well as from the presence of needlessly complex legal structures. examples of relevant indicators include a majority shareholding in the trustee held by the beneficiary or settlor, the establishment or reorganisation of entities shortly before the imposition of sanctions, and close relationships between directors of the entities subject to freezing and the designated person. the line of thinking adopted by the cjeu is, in many ways, broadly consistent with the reasoning adopted by the english court of appeal in the so -called “eurochem judgment” of 31 july 2025 (llc eurochem north-west-2 and eurochem group ag v societe generale s.a. and others [2025] ewhc 1938 (comm)), which we issued an advisory on here. beneficial ownership transparency for trust mandates: joined cases c-684/24 and c-685/24 the second judgment concerned the validity and interpretation of the beneficial ownership transparency regime under the fourth anti-money laundering directive (directive (eu) 2015/849), as applied to mandati fiduciari (trust mandates) governed by italian law. italian fiduciary companies challenged the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership information to members of the public demonstrating a legitimate interest, arguing that trust mandates do not entail a transfer of ownership and should therefore fall outside the scope of the directive's transparency obligations. the cjeu confirmed the validity of the challenged provisions, holding that the requirement for public access to beneficial ownership information, subject to the demonstration of a legitimate interest, is compatible with the rights to private and family life and to the protection of personal data guaranteed by articles 7 and 8 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union. the cjeu found that the eu legislature is pursuing a legitimate and important objective, namely, the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing through enhanced transparency and that the measures adopted are proportionate to that objective. this is clearly an evolution of the precedent and standards set by the european court of justice in sovim v luxembourg in 2023, see our blog here on the classification question, the cjeu held that eu law permits the italian legislature to regard trust mandates concluded with italian fiduciary companies as "other types of legal arrangements" having a structure or functions similar to trusts, notwithstanding that the mandato fiduciario does not entail a transfer of ownership of the relevant property. the cjeu considered that the italian legislature did not exceed the margin of discretion available to it in implementing the access regime. as regards procedural safeguards, the cjeu accepted that eu law permits the task of ruling on exemptions from disclosure, for instance, where access would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, violence, or intimidation, to be entrusted to non-judicial administrative bodies, such as italian chambers of commerce. however, the cjeu underscored that, where such an exemption is not granted, the beneficial owners concerned must be afforded the right to obtain interim legal protection. key takeaways for compliance and regulatory practitioners these judgments signal a firm judicial endorsement of the eu's expansive, effects-based approach to both sanctions enforcement and anti-money laundering regulation in the context of trust and fiduciary structures. for practitioners advising in relation to trust structures with any nexus to sanctioned individuals, the broad interpretation of "belonging to" and "control" demands heightened due diligence and a careful assessment of all factual indicators of influence, not merely formal legal title. for fiduciary service providers subject to aml obligations, the confirmation that trust mandates and similar arrangements fall within the directive's transparency regime reinforces the need for robust beneficial ownership identification, record-keeping, and disclosure processes. the requirement that beneficial owners retain access to interim judicial protection, even where exemption decisions are taken by administrative bodies, is a notable safeguard that member states must ensure is effectively available in practice. for more information see below the cases and the relevant press releases: press release no 73/26 for case c-483/23 and in joined cases c-428/24 / c-476/24 - here c-0483-23 joined cases c-428/24 and c-476/24 press release no 74/26 for cases c-684/24 and c-685/24 - here c-0684-24 c-685/24

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published its 2025 Annual Report, outlining its main achievements and activities in delivering on its mandates under its Work Programme. In 2025, the EBA focused on streamlining and improving the efficiency of the EU regulatory framework while expanding its supervisory role, particularly under the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).

15 June 2026 - ICMA’s Secondary Market Practices Committee (SMPC) has published its semi-annual report that provides detailed data on EU and UK corporate bond market trading activity This report provides an overview of European trading activity for corporate bond markets, comparing our latest findings with past performances since January 2022. The report is published in two separate editions: A corporate edition A sovereign edition Key findingsEuropean corporate bond secondary market activity remained robust in 2025, with total traded volumes reaching approximately €5.7tn with more than 6.3 million trades. Trading activity peaked in Q1 2025, recording the highest quarterly volumes and trade counts since the start of the dataset in 2022, before normalising through the remainder of the year. Average trade sizes increased during 2025, reversing the downward trend observed since 2022, with Q4 2025 average trade sizes rising to approximately €880k. Off-venue (”voice”) trading remained the dominant execution channel, representing 53% of traded volumes, while dealer-to-client venue trading accounted for 47%. However, venue trading has continued to gain market share over time, particularly for smaller trade sizes, with the proportion of on-venue trading increasing steadily since 2022.  While larger transactions remained predominantly OTC in 2025, with trades above €25m overwhelmingly executed off-venue, the data indicates increasing venue usage for larger ticket sizes.More information about the SMPC can be found here.

On 11 June 2026, the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) published the following draft reports on the European Commission’s legislative proposals relating to the market integration and supervision package (MISP): Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1095/2010, No 648/2012, No 600/2014, No 909/2014, 2015/2365, 2019/1156, 2021/23, 2022/858, 2023/1114, No 1060/2009, 2016/1011, 2017/2402, 2023/2631 and 2024/3005 as regards the further development of capital market integration and supervision within the Union. Draft report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2009/65/EC, 2011/61/EU and 2014/65/EU as regards the further development of capital market integration and supervision within the Union. Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on settlement finality and repealing Directive 98/26/EC and amending Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements. Each draft report contains draft European Parliament legislative resolutions setting out suggested amendments to the legislative proposals, with the justifications for those amendments set out in explanatory statements.Our earlier podcast on the MISP can be found here.

In his latest blog, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf explains the ECB Governing Council decision to raise interest rates by 0.25 per cent. This first change since June 2025 brings the Deposit Facility Rate to 2.25 per cent. He supported the decision and, along with his colleagues on the Governing Council, is committed to delivering our 2 per cent inflation target over the medium term.

A significant number of reporting issuers, particularly junior mining issuers, have taken advantage of the listed issuer financing exemption (“LIFE” or the “Exemption”) to raise limited amounts of capital since it was introduced in November 2022. Following a significant increase to the capital-raising threshold under the Exemption in May 2025, LIFE offerings have continued to gain momentum with the emergence of larger offerings and expanded dealer participation....By: Stikeman Elliott LLP

May 21, Washington, D.C.—SEC and NFA announce Memorandum of Understanding to further harmonize regulatory coordination