The Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) has issued a Notice of Hearing alleging that Calgary residents Dean Labbe and Julie Labbe engaged in illegal insider trading. According to the Notice of Hearing, between May 2018 and June 2024, Dean Labbe worked on mergers and acquisitions, and other business transactions, at an investment bank. Through his employment, he acquired material non-public information (MNPI) about publicly-traded companies. It is alleged that he and his mother Julie Labbe used this MNPI for highly-profitable trading. It is further alleged that, on one occasion, while in possession of MNPI about a specific company, Dean Labbe recommended or encouraged two individuals to purchase shares of that company. These are allegations and have not been proven in a hearing. An appearance to set a date for a hearing will be held on December 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in the ASC Hearing Room, located on the 5th floor, 250 – 5 Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta. A copy of the Notice of Hearing can be found on the ASC website. The ASC gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) in this matter. The ASC is the regulatory agency responsible for administering the province’s securities laws. It is entrusted with fostering a fair and efficient capital market in Alberta and with protecting investors. As a member of the Canadian Securities Administrators, the ASC works to improve, coordinate and harmonize the regulation of Canada’s capital markets.

Please be advised the MIAX Options Exchange, MIAX Pearl Options Exchange, MIAX Emerald Options Exchange, MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange and MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange will be closed on Thursday, December 25, 2025 for Christmas Day and Thursday, January 1, 2026 for New Year’s Day.On Wednesday, December 24, 2025, the MIAX Exchanges will have an abbreviated trading session. Trading in all option classes and equity issues will close 3 hours early.

Good morning. Welcome to our second Roundtable on the Trade-Through Prohibitions of Regulation NMS, including those watching online. I’m Jamie Selway, the Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. Thank you, Chairman Atkins for your remarks and for your leadership on a policy issue that is central to equity market structure. Thank you, Commissioners Peirce, Crenshaw and Uyeda, for your remarks as well. Thank you to my dedicated Division colleagues, including Ted Venuti, Arisa Kettig, David Liu and Kevin Brennan for gathering us here today and Jon Kroeper, Kelly Riley, Peggy Sullivan, and David Dimitrious, who join me as moderators. Thank you to the University of Austin, a new institution successfully bringing two of our favorite forces – innovation and competition – to bear to disrupt the market for undergraduate education, for allowing us to use its facilities for today’s event. And most importantly, thank you to our panelists. Today’s participants represent a wide variety of expert perspectives in equity markets shaped by nearly twenty years of operational experience with Regulation NMS. We are confident that your contributions will meaningfully inform the Commission’s next steps. Before proceeding further, please note that my remarks today are provided in my official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the staff. This disclaimer also applies to the comments of my Division colleagues who will join me to moderate today’s panels. On November 4, the citizens of the great state of Texas approved a ballot measure to make certain securities transaction taxes unconstitutional. Now, to anyone whose professional life, or private enthusiasms, involves “trading” or “markets,” this was a welcome development. Our Nation’s laboratories of democracy are a potent force for progress. The free air of Texas inspires and invigorates—and reminds us that markets work. Today’s event continues a journey that the Division began earlier this year. In July, we invited public comment on the trade-through prohibitions applicable to the equities and options markets. In September, we hosted a Roundtable to discuss the issues associated with such prohibitions. We heard informed points of view and received thoughtful feedback. Many participants voiced concern with the status quo and supported a reexamination of the trade-through prohibitions applicable to NMS stocks contained in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, commonly known as the Trade-Through Rule. As many noted, the Trade-Through Rule is intertwined with other rules and regulations that must be carefully considered should the Commission decide to rescind or modify the Trade-Through Rule. At the time the Trade-Through Rule was adopted, many, including Chairman Atkins, warned that its complexity would lead to negative unintended consequences. Twenty years later, we acknowledge this complexity, and we pay keen attention to such warnings. Accordingly, today’s Roundtable aims to illuminate the Trade-Through Rule’s entanglements with other requirements, so that if the Rule is removed or altered, our market structure is improved, not damaged. We expect another lively, thought-provoking discussion today. We have designed the panels to more deeply consider the ramifications of rescinding or modifying the Trade-Through Rule. When the Trade-Through Rule was proposed as part of Regulation NMS, commenters emphasized the futility of protecting the best displayed prices against trade-throughs if those prices were not fairly and efficiently accessible. Rule 610 promotes fair and non-discriminatory access to quotations displayed in the national market system. As adopted, Rule 610 sets forth standards governing access to quotations in NMS stocks, with the stated goal of promoting access in three ways: enabling private linkages, limiting access fees, and restricting locking or crossing quotations. During the September Roundtable and in comments received, contributors urged consideration of the contrapositive—are all of the requirements included in Rule 610 necessary if the Trade Through Rule is rescinded or modified? Our first panel will tackle this question. Much of Regulation NMS’s substance is contained in its defined terms. Our second panel will drill down on the necessary changes, if any, that may need to be made to the definitions contained in Rule 600 if the Trade-Through Rule was to be modified or rescinded. Of particular importance is any effect on the national best bid and national best offer – the NBBO. A robust, transparent, reliable NBBO is essential in promoting fair, efficient, and liquid markets—and the U.S. capital markets are rightly known as the most liquid in the world. For this reason, decades of Commission oversight of consolidated market data have centered on ensuring that the NBBO remains ground zero for price discovery and a consistent baseline for best execution. The second panel will also consider the incentives associated with the current formula for market data revenue allocation and how these incentives affect the marketplace. Finally, our third panel will consider potential enhancements to the best execution requirements, including whether additional guidance is necessary if changes to the Trade-Through Rule and associated rules are made. During the September Roundtable and through comments submitted, many highlighted the relationship between the Trade-Through Rule and best execution, suggesting that Trade-Through Rule changes could raise questions about how a broker-dealer should handle and execute customer orders. The duty of best execution predates the federal securities laws. Its origin lies in the “common law agency obligations of undivided loyalty and reasonable care that an agent owes to his principal.”[1] These duties are not merely historical—they remain essential today because executing customer orders is a core function of broker-dealers. Upholding best execution is not an empty tradition. Best execution is an evergreen obligation at the core of a broker-dealer’s relationship with its customer. Over the years, a number of considerations have been identified by the courts, the Commission, and FINRA as relevant to best execution. These include not only price, but also speed of execution, clearing costs, size of the order, and the cost and difficulty of executing in a particular market, among others. As then-Commissioner Atkins and Commissioner Cynthia Glassman pointed out at the time of Regulation NMS’s adoption, the Trade-Through Rule seemed to elevate “price [as] the sole criterion for determining how and where orders will be executed” and believed that the Trade-Through Rule restricted “investor choice and ability to obtain best execution.”[2] Of course, FINRA’s role in this area is critical. A best execution rule was first introduced in 1968 by its predecessor, the NASD, laying the groundwork for what would become FINRA’s current rule, approved in 2011. Built on decades of experience with the predecessor rule and guidance, this framework has helped shape how market participants fulfill their obligations. As we consider the evolving market structure and the potential for changes to the Trade-Through Rule, we welcome a thorough examination of FINRA’s best execution rule, its accompanying guidance, and any enhancements that could strengthen its ability to serve investors effectively. Again, many thanks to all for participating in today’s Roundtable. We have our boots on—and we’re ready to ride.   [1] See, e.g., Newton v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 135 F.3d 266, 270 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 811 (1998). [2] Dissent of Commissioners Cynthia A. Glassman and Paul S. Atkins to the Adoption of Regulation NMS (June 9, 2005).

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to join my fellow Commissioners and Jamie Selway, director of our Division of Trading and Markets, in welcoming you to today’s roundtable. I should also like to acknowledge and thank the University of Austin for providing the setting for today’s program; our esteemed panelists for contributing their perspectives; and our audience, whether here on campus or by livestream, for taking part in this important discussion. Finally, before I share a few reflections, I must add that the views I express this morning are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. As I noted at our September roundtable, the SEC adopted Regulation NMS at a time of profound transformation. Electronic trading systems were continuing to unsettle old assumptions about how markets could function as handling and routing practices became more transparent, competition drove commissions lower, and penny pricing reshaped the mechanics of trading. Rather than meet these disruptions with a measured approach, in 2005 the Commission decided to impose prescriptive rules and dictate very specific processes to address what it perceived as ills—even as these new trends and technologies were still evolving. Worse, the staff came out with repeated rounds of FAQs to ameliorate the challenges that their problematic rules engendered. While I fully supported then, as I do now, the worthy goal of enhancing market efficiency, then-Commissioner Cynthia Glassman and I objected to Reg NMS’s adoption because we believed that the rigidity of its regime, especially Rule 611, would hinder, rather than enhance, the long-term growth of our markets. Two decades have given us the benefit of perspective, and the verdict is clear: Reg NMS, built on flawed foundations, has invited gamesmanship and contributed to the fragmentation of our markets, the dispersal of liquidity, and diminished transparency. The very outcomes that we feared have come to pass. Our warnings are now lessons. And Reg NMS—Rule 611’s trade-through prohibitions in particular—command a fresh look so that we can continue to strengthen our securities markets. Indeed, we must summon the courage to acknowledge when well-intended policies have produced unintended consequences. To this end, our first roundtable engaged an array of industry participants, academics, and regulators in Washington, for a very fruitful initial discussion. Their perspectives, along with the thoughtful comment letters that we have since received, underscore a broad consensus: revisiting Rule 611 is a worthwhile and overdue endeavor. While views may vary on the scope of potential changes, a significant number of panelists and commenters believe that the rule should be modified or rescinded entirely. In September, we also heard several potential paths forward, including volume thresholds for protected quotes, block exceptions, rescinding the locked and crossed market prohibition, adjustments to access fee caps, and revisions to the market data revenue allocation formula. Each of these proposals merits serious consideration. Yet as I cautioned two decades ago, we must take a careful, deliberative approach to any changes, lest we make the mistakes that brought us here. So today, we take a necessary next step in that process. Of course, we will continue our discussion of the trade-through prohibitions. But we will also delve more deeply into how Rule 611 intersects with other parts of Reg NMS rules and our market structure more broadly. Specifically, our first panel will focus on Rule 610 and its requirements relating to fair access, access fees, and locked/crossed markets. Our second group of panelists will then discuss Rule 600, including the defined terms intertwined with the trade-through rule, the effects on the NBBO, as well as the incentives associated with the market data formula revenue allocation from the consolidated market data plans. Finally, our third panel will examine potential enhanced best execution guidance if the Commission modifies or rescinds the trade-through prohibitions of Rule 611. Today’s roundtable will help to ensure that we do not saddle a future Commission—or the next generation of investors and market participants—with the same set of challenges that we left for ourselves two decades ago. We owe it to them to be thoughtful, to be rigorous, and to be reflective. So, I want to thank our panelists and moderators once more for being here. I should also like to encourage members of the public to continue sharing your perspectives through our comment file. As we undertake this reassessment of Reg NMS, your insights are indispensable. I look forward to today’s discussions and to the takeaways that will emerge from them. Thank you all for being here, and for your continued engagement in the critical work before us.

The Canton Network, the privacy-enabled blockchain purpose-built for regulated financial markets, today announced World Liberty Financial's (“WLFI”) intention to deploy its USD1 stablecoin on Canton. This planned integration represents a significant milestone in WLFI’s strategy to expand USD1’s reach across institutional onchain finance and accelerate adoption among regulated global market participants. USD1 has rapidly emerged as one of the fastest-growing digital dollar stablecoins, surpassing a $2 billion market capitalisation. Built to institutional standards, USD1 is a fully reserved, 1:1 redeemable digital asset, backed entirely by short-term U.S. government treasuries, U.S. dollar deposits, and other cash equivalents.  By planning to launch USD1 on the Canton Network, WLFI aims to expand the stablecoin’s capabilities into a regulated, interoperable ecosystem designed for global finance. Canton’s architecture allows institutions to settle tokenized assets and stablecoins with privacy, control, and compliance, enabling a wide range of high-value financial use cases, including: Collateralization for derivatives and institutional lending Instant, cross-border payments with 24/7 settlement Onchain asset issuance, funding, and redemption Interoperable onchain financing across institutions and markets “Institutions around the world, from sovereign entities to global asset managers, are looking for a trusted and purely digital U.S. dollar,” said Zak Folkman, Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer of World Liberty Financial. “Our intention to deploy USD1 on Canton will allow regulated institutions to transact securely and privately while leveraging the programmability and efficiency of blockchain technology. Canton’s institutional-grade infrastructure creates an ideal foundation for real-world digital dollar settlement.” “WLFI’s move to bring USD1 to Canton highlights the growing demand for compliant, interoperable digital assets within institutional markets,” said Melvis Langyintuo, Executive Director of the Canton Foundation. “Canton’s privacy-first architecture enables stablecoins like USD1 to power next-generation financial applications, from intraday repo to digital bond settlement, without compromising regulatory requirements.”

CUSIP Global Services (CGS) today announced the release of its CUSIP Issuance Trends Report for November 2025. The report, which tracks the issuance of new security identifiers as an early indicator of debt and capital markets activity over the next quarter, found a monthly increase in request volume for new corporate identifiers and a monthly decrease in volume for new municipal identifiers. North American corporate CUSIP requests totaled 8,572 in November, which is up 4.1% on a monthly basis. On an annualized basis, North American corporate requests were up 8.3% over November 2024 totals. Requests for new U.S. corporate debt identifiers rose 8.6% while requests for new U.S. corporate equity identifiers declined 9.1% for the month of November. The aggregate total of identifier requests for new municipal securities – including municipal bonds, long-term and short-term notes, and commercial paper – fell 12.5% versus October totals. On a year-over-year basis, overall municipal volumes were up 14.9% through the end of November. Texas led state-level municipal request volume with a total of 169 new CUSIP requests in November, followed by California (83) and New York (78). “Corporate request volumes continue to surge, this month led by corporate debt issuers,” said Gerard Faulkner, Director of Operations for CGS. “With strong momentum heading into the final month of the year, we anticipate closing out 2025 with most core asset classes showing year-over-year growth in new CUSIP request volumes.” Requests for international equity CUSIPs fell 17.7% in November and international debt CUSIP requests rose 5.2%. On an annualized basis, international equity CUSIP requests were up 13.8% and international debt CUSIP requests were up 10.3%. To view the full CUSIP Issuance Trends report for November, please click here. Following is a breakdown of new CUSIP Identifier requests by asset class year-to-date through November 2025: Asset Class 2025 YTD 2024 YTD YOY Change U.S. Corporate Debt 32,077 24,679 30.0% Long-Term Municipal Notes 732 595 23.0% Private Placement Securities 4,982 4,269 16.7% Municipal Bonds 10,871 9,463 14.9% International Equity 1,744 1,533 13.8% International Debt 6,580 5,967 10.3% Canada Corporate Debt & Equity 6,007 5,616 7.0% U.S. Corporate Equity 11,149 10,690 4.3% Syndicated Loans 2,844 2,802 1.5% Short-Term Municipal Notes 1,006 1,070 -6.0% CDs < 1-year Maturity 8,582 9,242 -7.1% CDs > 1-year Maturity 6,931 7,954 -12.9%        

Miami International Holdings, Inc. ("MIAX" or the "Company") (NYSE: MIAX), a technology-driven leader in building and operating regulated financial markets across multiple asset classes, today announced the closing of a secondary public offering of 7,762,500 shares of its common stock, which included 1,012,500 shares sold pursuant to the underwriters' exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares, at a price to the public of $41.00 per share (the "Offering"). The Offering consisted entirely of secondary shares including shares issued upon the exercise of warrants sold by certain selling stockholders of MIAX. The Company did not sell any shares of common stock in the Offering and did not receive any proceeds from the Offering. J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Piper Sandler acted as lead joint bookrunning managers for the offering. Raymond James, Rosenblatt, William Blair, and Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, A Stifel Company, acted as joint bookrunning managers. A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and was declared effective on December 11, 2025. The Offering was made only by means of a prospectus. Copies of the final prospectus relating to the Offering may be obtained for free by visiting EDGAR on the SEC website at www.sec.gov. Alternatively, copies of the prospectus may be obtained from: J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Attention: c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, 1155 Long Island Avenue, Edgewood, NY 11717, or by email at prospectus-eq_fi@jpmchase.com and postsalemanualrequests@broadridge.com; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 180 Varick Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10014; or Piper Sandler & Co. at, 350 North 5th Street, Suite 1000, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Attention: Prospectus Department, by telephone at (800) 747-3924, or by email at prospectus@psc.com. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy these securities, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

Gallmetzer HealthCare S.p.A. celebrated its debut on the Vienna Stock Exchange today. CEO Dietrich Gallmetzer traditionally opened trading in the direct market plus segment by ringing the opening bell. The shares of the Bolzano-based company are now tradable on a daily basis in a supervised intraday auction. Gallmetzer HealthCare S.p.A. is a corporate group active in the field of oral and dental care. According to the company, its brand portfolio spans the entire value chain, ranging from in-house production of proprietary products such as anaesthetics and sustainable oral care solutions to dental distribution of its own products and third-party goods. The transaction was accompanied by Wiener Privatbank as lead manager, while the Rosinger Group acts as Capital Market Coach. ICF Bank is responsible for supervising the auction. “With the listing we are opening a new chapter in the development of our company. As Italy’s second-largest dental holding, Gallmetzer HealthCare strengthens trust among partners and customers through its presence on the capital market, while at the same time laying the foundation for further expanding our unique family of brands across Europe,” says Dietrich Gallmetzer, CEO of Gallmetzer HealthCare. Since 2019, the Vienna MTF with its direct market and direct market plus segments has been aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as fast-growing young companies. The straightforward path to the stock exchange provides companies from a wide range of industries with the basis for further growth via the capital market and potential equity financing. A large number of partners within the direct network – consisting of Capital Market Coaches and Direct Funding Partners – support prospective issuers throughout the listing process. Currently, 31 securities are listed across the two entry-level segments.

We are asking for views on new proposals as the next step in shaping the UK’s crypto rules. These proposals continue our progress towards an open, sustainable and competitive crypto market that people can trust. We want a market where innovation can thrive, but where people understand the risks. Regulation cannot – and should not – remove all risk. Instead, it should make sure anyone investing in crypto does so with their eyes open. Our proposals apply a similar approach to crypto as we do in traditional finance: clear information for consumers, proportionate requirements for firms, and flexibility to support innovation. What we’re consulting on Admissions and disclosures – Rules for listing cryptoassets and what firms must tell investors, so people have the facts before they invest. Market abuse – Measures to stop insider trading and manipulation, so markets are fair. Cryptoasset trading platforms – Standards for exchanges to keep trading safe and reliable. Intermediaries – Requirements for brokers and other middlemen, so they act responsibly. Staking – Making sure the risks are clear when firms offer staking – a service that lets you lock up your crypto for a reward. Lending and borrowing – Rules to protect both crypto lenders and borrowers. Decentralised finance (DeFi) – DeFi lets people trade, lend and borrow using crypto without a middleman. We’re asking if the same rules that apply in traditional finance should also apply here. Prudential requirements – Financial safeguards for firms, so they can better manage risk. These proposals build on feedback from earlier discussions and new research published today. They are aligned with new government legislation laid yesterday and reflect our commitment to getting the balance right. David Geale, executive director for payments and digital finance at the FCA, said: 'Regulation is coming – and we want to get it right. We’ve listened to feedback, and now we’re setting out our proposals for the UK’s crypto regime. 'Our goal is to have a regime that protects consumers, supports innovation and promotes trust. We welcome feedback to help us finalise these rules.' We’ve made significant progress in delivering our crypto roadmap and are helping firms meet our standards and become registered while we wait for further legislation. While we work closely with partners to deliver the UK’s crypto rules, people should remember crypto is largely unregulated – except for financial promotions and financial crime purposes. Consultation responses are open until 12 February 2026. To share your views, please see our CP25/40, CP25/41 and CP25/42 pages. Background Read CP25/40, CP25/41 and CP25/42. Read our Cryptoassets consumer research 2025 and Cryptoasset regulation and consumer decision-making: Evidence from an online experiment research notes. These publications mark the next milestone in crypto regulation in the UK closely engaging with the Government’s proposals including the statutory instrument laid at the Parliament yesterday (15 December). We have considered how these consultation papers will apply the UK issuers of stablecoins and have introduced specific rules and guidance where necessary. UK issuers of stablecoins will not be able to pass interest from their own backing assets to holders; we are considering how further financial incentives could be shared with holders when UK issued stablecoins are used. The FCA has previously set out the timeline for crypto regulation in its crypto roadmap. Earlier this year, the FCA consulted on key topics such as stablecoins, cryptoasset custody and conduct of business and high-level standards. Soon, the FCA will consult further on Consumer Duty and other consumer protection matters for cryptoassets, including our approach to financial promotions. Find out more about existing rules firms must comply with. If firms want to become registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, we offer pre-application support. It’s a free meeting with a case officer who can talk them through any questions they might have.  We also run webinars and in person events with industry and compliance teams to educate crypto firms specifically on our rules. There will be more of these in the coming months aimed at specific areas of our rules. We provide firms with lots of resources to help them understand our rules and how to meet expectations. Find out more. The FCA enables a fair and thriving financial services market for the good of consumers and the economy. Find out more about the FCA.

Duco, a leading SaaS provider of AI-powered operational data automation, has announced a strategic collaboration with Phoenix Group, one of the UK’s largest long-term savings and retirement businesses, to modernise reconciliation infrastructure, empower operational teams, and scale efficiently across its Asset Management division.  The project will create a unified, cloud-based environment for reconciling investment and accounting records across 20 administrators and multiple asset classes. By simplifying these critical workflows, Phoenix aims to strengthen controls, reduce manual intervention, and give its teams greater ownership of daily operations.  Philip Shaw, Asset Management COO of Phoenix Group, said: “Bringing our reconciliation infrastructure to the cloud is a key part of our operational strategy,” said Shaw. “With Duco, we can manage change more quickly, reduce reliance on IT support, and establish a consistent model for how data is reconciled across the business.”  “The relationship with Duco has been open and collaborative from the start,” added Shaw. “We value the team’s understanding of our environment and their commitment to helping us build a system that supports future growth.”  The initial phase will focus on automating reconciliation between Investment Book of Record (IBOR) and Accounting Book of Record (ABOR) data, ensuring consistent, auditable controls and alignment with European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) standards.  Michael Chin, Chief Executive Officer of Duco, said: “Phoenix Group represents the kind of institution Duco was made for: complex operations, multiple data sources, and a clear drive for efficiency and control. We’re delighted to support them in building a reconciliation platform that’s fit for the next decade.”    

Today, ACER releases its Opinion on France’s National Resource Adequacy Assessment (NRAA). This assessment complements the European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA) 2024, using input assumptions and modelling approaches that better reflect the characteristics of the national electricity system, drawing on historical data and recent developments. What is a resource adequacy assessment? The European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA) evaluates electricity resource adequacy across the EU and provides a consistent framework to assess whether additional national measures are needed to ensure security of supply. ERAA is carried out annually by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and reviewed by ACER. Member States can complement the European analysis through national assessments (NRAAs). While based on the ERAA methodology, NRAAs may capture new developments or national specificities not yet reflected in the latest ERAA. When a national assessment identifies new adequacy concerns, the Member State informs ACER. In turn, ACER issues an opinion on the differences between the national and European assessments. What did ACER find? ACER finds the French assessment clear, robust and generally aligned with ERAA 2024 for most target years. However, unlike ERAA, the NRAA identifies an adequacy concern for 2030, estimating nearly twenty hours during the year when electricity demand would not be met (above France’s reliability standard of two hours). ACER notes that most differences with ERAA 2024 are justified by national specificities or methodological improvements. At the same time, it identifies some unjustified differences that could overestimate the projected risks. What are the next steps? ACER encourages the French authorities to consider its recommendations to ensure a more accurate assessment of adequacy risks. Read more.

Global fintech leader Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: BR) today announced significant enhancements to its multi-asset portfolio and trade order management platform, introducing fully integrated general ledger capabilities and a redesigned user interface (UI). These upgrades mark an important step forward in Broadridge’s strategy to deliver a unified, front-to-back investment management solution that increases operational efficiency, elevates fiduciary oversight, and supports faster, more informed decision-making for buyside firms. “Across the alternatives and broader asset management landscape, firms are under tremendous pressure to modernize fragmented technology stacks, enhance controls, and differentiate in an increasingly competitive market,” said Frank Cataudo, General Manager of Investment Management Solutions, Broadridge. “Broadridge is investing meaningfully in the evolution of our platform to help clients meet these challenges head-on. The addition of an integrated general ledger and our redesigned UI reflect our commitment to providing a more unified, transparent, and scalable platform for the next generation of investment management solutions.” The new general ledger capabilities extend Broadridge’s portfolio management system by embedding period accounting and financial statement reporting directly into the investment platform. The solution provides a fund-level general ledger that systematically posts accounting entries for all investment activity, offers tools for period adjustments, introduces workflows to close the period, and provides out-of-the-box financial statements. By offering a comprehensive shadow book of record, clients can improve the accuracy and efficiency of their month-end close and compare seamlessly against official fund administrator books and records. As asset managers face mounting demands for transparency, automation, and regulatory compliance, the integrated general ledger supports improved fiduciary controls, operational stability, and data accuracy. The architecture is also built to support next-generation scalability and future global compatibility. Complementing the new general ledger functionality, Broadridge has introduced a redesigned UI that delivers a modern, intuitive, and consolidated workspace for portfolio managers and traders. The updated UI optimizes workflows, and unifies portfolio management, risk management, analytics, and reporting into a single experience – reducing the need to navigate across multiple screens and enabling faster, more informed decision-making. Broadridge’s multi-asset portfolio and trade order management platform is recognized as a leading solution for asset managers, hedge funds, asset owners, and other buyside firms, offering seamless integration across diverse asset classes to enhance decision-making and operational efficiency.

Supports Citi’s modernisation efforts and client-centric focus Provides AI-ready content, multi-asset class data and workflow solutions across all business lines LSEG and Citi today announced a multi‑year strategic partnership to deploy LSEG’s data, analytics and workflow solutions at enterprise scale. The partnership strengthens Citi’s data foundations, supports its broader modernisation efforts and enhances the quality and speed of client delivery.Under the multi-year agreement, LSEG’s data and analytics will support Citi’s front-to-back workflows across markets, investment banking, wealth, trading, risk, finance and compliance. By consolidating data access and standardising governance, usage rights and entitlements, the partnership will help Citi drive greater scale, efficiency and more consistent data-driven decision-making throughout the bank.LSEG will provide AI-ready content, multi-asset class data spanning economic indicators, pricing and market information, company and reference data, benchmarks and indices, fund and Lipper data, deals data, commodities, news, risk-intelligence and regulatory data. This curated intelligence will support a wide range of activities, enabling clearer insights and more informed client conversations for Citi.The partnership gives Citi access to LSEG’s end-to-end workflow solutions, led by LSEG Workspace, supported by wealth and advisory APIs and enterprise platforms. This is complemented by multi-channel content delivery for real-time and historical pricing, news, investment and advisory content, wealth and trading feeds, FX and buy-side trading capabilities, and professional services. The partnership also strengthens Citi’s compliance, KYC and risk management frameworks. By integrating LSEG’s World-Check risk-intelligence data, Citi will enhance the consistency, auditability and coverage of its onboarding and monitoring processes across markets. David Livingstone, Citi’s Chief Client Officer, said:“High-quality data underpins how we deliver for clients. This partnership with LSEG gives our teams a comprehensive, trusted base of intelligence that spans Citi’s franchise, strengthening how we design products, advise clients, and execute on their behalf. By integrating LSEG’s data and analytics directly into our workflows, we can deliver sharper insights, faster responses, and a more consistent client experience.” Ron Lefferts, Co-Head of Data & Analytics, LSEG, commented:“We are proud to deepen our relationship with Citi through this long-term agreement. Our focus is on delivering trusted, multi-asset class content and workflow solutions that function as strategic infrastructure. By combining AI-ready content, cloud-native analytics and integrated workflow tools such as LSEG Workspace, we are supporting Citi’s modernisation agenda, helping them innovate at scale while strengthening governance, risk management and compliance.”Together, these capabilities will support a wide range of client and internal use cases from portfolio construction, index-linked product design and wealth advisory, to treasury and trading decisions, investment banking origination, risk management and regulatory reporting ensuring teams across Citi can rely on a single, governed view of high-quality data. The partnership underscores LSEG’s role as a strategic data and analytics partner to leading financial institutions globally, helping firms modernise their data infrastructure and unlock new sources of growth for their businesses and their clients.

ASIC has today updated its regulatory guidance on managing conflicts of interest for Australian financial services businesses. The changes align our guidance with developments in law and policy and draw on ASIC’s regulatory experience and insights from its surveillance of private markets. ‘Conflicts of interest aren’t just ethical dilemmas. They pose real threats that erode trust, tarnish reputations, and cause lasting harm to consumers, investors, and the entire financial ecosystem,’ ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke said. ‘Effective conflict management is more than a regulatory checkbox—it’s the cornerstone of trust in financial services. The updated Regulatory Guide 181 AFS Licensing: Managing Conflicts of Interest (RG 181) sets out clear, principles-based guidance for Australian financial services (AFS) licensees. It aims to help licensees fulfil their licensing obligation to have robust arrangements and tailored conflict management strategies in place. Key updates include: how the law applies to conflicts of interest, including the scope of the conflicts management obligation and links to other related obligations the types of conflicts AFS licensees should identify and manage the need for robust, tailored arrangements to manage conflicts practical steps for effective conflict management, and a non-exhaustive ‘catalogue’ of related legal obligations and information. The revised RG 181 replaces guidance issued in August 2004 and is part of ASIC’s ongoing regulatory maintenance and simplification agenda—making it easier for businesses to access regulatory information and understand their obligations. Consultation feedback and ASIC’s response Between 30 July and 5 September 2025, ASIC consulted publicly on proposed updates to RG 181. ASIC received 26 submissions from industry, industry groups and other interested parties, with broad support for simplifying and updating the guidance. Most feedback focused on technical details and specific guidance, such as the illustrative examples ASIC provided to identify different types of conflicts of interest. ASIC updated RG 181 to address this feedback, where appropriate, and we have summarised our responses to key feedback. You can read these responses along with the 22 non-confidential submissions to ASIC’s public consultation on the relevant consultation paper webpage. Background Conflicts of interest are a significant source of misconduct as well as consumer, investor and economic harm within the financial services sector. Under section 912A(1)(aa) of the Corporations Act 2001, AFS licensees must have adequate arrangements in place to effectively manage all conflicts of interest, except those that occur wholly outside a financial services business. The management of conflicts of interest was raised as an area requiring further clarification in a number of submissions to ASIC’s discussion paper on the evolving dynamics in public and private markets, and was a compliance issue identified in ASIC’s private credit surveillance report (REP 820). The issuance of the updated RG 181 was outlined as a deliverable in ASIC’s roadmap for the next 12-18 months, released as part of our response to the discussion paper in November (REP 823). More information Regulatory Guide 181 AFS Licensing: Managing Conflicts of Interest (RG 181) ASIC seeks feedback on proposed updates to conflicts management guidance (25-150MR) Consultation paper 385 Proposed update to RG 181 Licensing: Managing conflicts of interest (CP 385) ASIC media releases are point-in-tim

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency today announced that the 2026 threshold for higher-priced mortgage loans that are subject to special appraisal requirements will increase from $33,500 to $34,200. The threshold amount will be effective January 1, 2026, and is based on the 2.1 percent annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, known as CPI-W, as of June 1, 2025. The Dodd-Frank Act added special appraisal requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans to the Truth in Lending Act, including that creditors obtain a written appraisal based on a physical visit to the interior of the home before making a higher-priced mortgage loan. The rules implementing these requirements contain an exemption for loans at or below a threshold amount that is adjusted annually to reflect CPI-W increases. Related Link Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold (PDF)

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) reported on the performance of first-lien mortgages in the federal banking system during the third quarter of 2025. The OCC Mortgage Metrics Report, Third Quarter 2025 showed that 97.4 percent of mortgages included in the report were current and performing at the end of the quarter, remaining unchanged from 97.4 percent one year earlier. The percentage of seriously delinquent mortgages – mortgages that are 60 or more days past due and all mortgages held by bankrupt borrowers whose payments are 30 or more days past due – also remained unchanged from the third quarter of 2024. Servicers initiated 7,903 new foreclosures in the third quarter of 2025 showing an increase from the previous quarter and an increase from a year earlier. Servicers completed 8,190 modifications during the third quarter of 2025, a 2.7 percent decrease from the previous quarter’s 8,419 modifications. Of these 8,190 modifications, 7,755, or 94.7 percent, were “combination modifications” — modifications that included multiple actions affecting the affordability and sustainability of the loan, such as an interest rate reduction and a term extension. The first-lien mortgages included in the OCC’s quarterly report comprise approximately 20 percent of all residential mortgage debt outstanding in the United States or approximately 10.5 million loans totaling $2.7 trillion in principal balances. This report provides information on mortgage performance through September 30, 2025, and is available on the OCC’s website. With this publication, the OCC is transitioning to a new online version of the quarterly Mortgage Metrics Report that provides additional transparency into and search capability for the contents of all OCC mortgage metric report data compiled since the third quarter of 2016. On the new interactive webpage, data will be available for download in a variety of formats and based on timespan selected by users. Related Link OCC Mortgage Metrics Report, Third Quarter 2025 (PDF)

Today, SIFMA published a report with Ernst & Young LLP (EY US), “U.S. Treasury and Repo Clearing Done-Away Model Design Considerations.” The report provides a guideline and framework for baseline U.S. Treasury done-away clearing requirements under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) upcoming Treasury Clearing Rule. This report is a follow-on to the “U.S. Treasury Central Clearing Industry Considerations Report” published in November 2024. Done-away Treasury clearing refers to the process in which trades executed by an external broker are centrally cleared through a firm’s designated clearing provider rather than the executing broker. The document has four objectives: Outline the desired done-away flows for different execution paths as defined by market participants; Describe roles and responsibilities of market participants, covered clearing agencies (CCAs), trading venues, and other technology platforms across the trade lifecycle; Identify the core capabilities and data requirements need to be established to enable the desired done-away flows; and Indicate proposed owners for developing and implementing the defined core capabilities. “As we approach the effective date for central clearing of U.S. Treasury securities, SIFMA is working to support the industry with the transition to ensure there is as little disruption as possible to this important market,” said Joe Seidel, SIFMA Chief Operating Officer.  “This report, in conjunction with our other efforts, is designed to help firms with their steps to preparedness.  Treasuries play a key role in both the U.S. and world economies and SIFMA is supportive of efforts to make the market more resilient, while at the same time we recognize the need to ensure liquidity is not negatively impacted.” Clearing transactions involves a clearing agency stepping in between a buyer and seller to handle certain elements of transaction processing, manage risk and pay down obligations.  In December 2023, the SEC approved a final rule which mandates the clearing of certain eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities. It triggered a significant structural change to the U.S. Treasury market and will have significant impacts on broker-dealers, institutional investors, asset managers, hedge funds, interdealer brokers, principal trading firms, banks, and covered clearing agencies (CCAs). The first compliance date is December 31, 2026, for eligible cash market transactions, and June 30, 2027, for eligible repo market transactions. “As the effective date for central clearing of U.S. Treasury securities approaches, the industry faces a critical transition that must be managed carefully to avoid disruption,” said Neal Ullman, Managing Director, Financial Services Consulting, EY. “This report provides key design considerations for implementing a done-away model to help prepare for compliance, while reinforcing the importance of maintaining market stability and liquidity.” The report is designed to capture and organize the proposed done-away flows and core requirements based on input and subject-matter analysis from market participants on both the buy side and sell side. Through input collected for the November 2024 Considerations Report, eight total industry challenges were highlighted related to open concerns and specific elements to design a controlled and resilient U.S. Treasury Clearing done-away model. SIFMA organized a done-away steering committee comprised of both buy and sell side representation to help discuss, prioritize, ideate, and document a proposed done-away model that includes operational flows, core capabilities required, and roles and responsibilities of each party involved. The following challenges were prioritized for this effort: Supporting data capabilities Pre-trade limit checks for various execution paths (e.g., Central Limit Order Book “CLOB”, Request for Quote “RFQ”, Voice) Operational flows and submission to CCAs Bunched orders/allocations The full report is available at the following link.

CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report has been updated, and is now available: http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm.Additional information on the Weekly Swaps Report. Archive Explanatory Notes Swaps Report Data Dictionary Release Schedule Released: Weekly on Mondays at 3:30 p.m. https://links-2.govdelivery.com/CL0/http:%2F%2Fwww.cftc.gov%2FMarketReports%2FSwapsReports%2Findex.htm%3FSource=govdelivery%26utm_medium=email%26utm_source=govdelivery/1/0101019b23b62383-d9d0d932-e599-4702-b918-4816bb3450d1-000000/yNiWNRgh61iLUYdFih3-G6zCF4fdl9WXiKt1O7Fwka8=435

Special Announcement: The processing and publication of Commitments of Traders data were interrupted from October 1 – November 12 due to a lapse in federal appropriations. Following a return to normal operations, the CFTC has resumed publication of the Commitments of Traders reports in chronological order. A revised release schedule depicts the intended COT Report publication dates for the data associated with the original publication date. The reports for the week of November 25, 2025 are now available. Report data is also available in the CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE), which allows users to search, filter, customize and download report data.  Additional information on Commitments of Traders (COT) | CFTC.gov Historical Viewable Historical Compressed Revised 2025 Release Schedule CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE) PRE User Guide PRE Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Thank you, Chairman Atkins, Commissioner Uyeda, and Richard. And thank you all for joining us in-person or online for the Crypto Task Force’s sixth roundtable. Thank you especially to our moderator, Yaya Fanusie, and today’s panelists for what will be an interesting and perhaps passionate discussion about financial surveillance and privacy. Happy Bill of Rights Day![i] Last time when I spoke at length about privacy, I told the story of my grandfather and his not-so-private telephone conversation.[ii] My other grandfather lived across the ocean in Friesland, which is in the northern part of the Netherlands. During the Nazi occupation of the country, a German officer came to my grandfather’s house to secure a room for the officer’s girlfriend. My grandfather, an opponent of the occupiers, certainly could not have one of them living in his house. So, my mother, who was a young child, was paraded in front of the officer with a warning that the house was full of similarly runny-nosed children. Wouldn’t his girlfriend prefer to live somewhere else? She would, and the family was spared a spy in their midst. Even in less dire times when the stakes are lower, the idea of having an uninvited stranger in your house, watching everything you do, is unthinkable. In this country, people have an expectation of privacy in their homes; the law sets up barriers to prevent government surveillance of people suspected of no wrongdoing. Similar expectations and protections of privacy do not exist for our financial lives. The lack of financial privacy is puzzling. After all, a walk through someone’s financial transactions will tell the government as much or more about someone as would a walk through her home. Legal developments, most notably the third-party doctrine, and the decades-long cultivation of an anti-financial-privacy ethos in our national consciousness have made mass surveillance routine when it comes to the financial system. People assume—often correctly—that the government is watching their financial transactions and shrug it off because they “have nothing to hide.” Our national degradation of financial privacy and the rules that embody it are overdue for a change, and crypto is helping to nudge a reassessment. On the one hand, crypto opens new possibilities for transactions without the financial intermediaries that are central to existing financial surveillance programs. Tokenized securities transactions, for example, can occur without the intermediation of a broker. As our personal transactions become increasingly disintermediated, government will receive less information about those transactions from traditional channels. On the other hand, the public blockchains on which many crypto transactions take place are viewable by everyone, which creates a demand for privacy-protecting tools. Accordingly, as crypto usage increases, the public and relevant government agencies need to rethink when and how financial transactions are surveilled. Deep thought about financial surveillance and privacy issues as they relate to cryptocurrencies is not new. Some of our panelists and others like Ian Miers and Matthew Greene have been thinking about these issues for many years, but new technological developments are broadening the conversation. Accordingly, the recently passed GENIUS Act, which regulates centralized stablecoins, directs Treasury “to identify innovative or novel methods, techniques, or strategies that regulated financial institutions use, or have the potential to use, to detect illicit activity, such as money laundering, involving digital assets . . . .”[iii] That process is underway.[iv] Also in-process are efforts to develop tools to enable law-abiding citizens to live private lives and protect themselves from bad actors. Zero-knowledge proofs shield private information while proving, for example, that someone is permitted to conduct a given transaction. Mixers enable people to make charitable donations,[v] get paid, lend money to a friend, or engage in other legal transactions without telegraphing them to the world. Decentralized physical infrastructure networks provide essential services without a central actor who can withhold these services from disfavored people. At today’s roundtable, we will hear about these and other new technologies designed to protect the privacy of transactions occurring on blockchains and to streamline compliance. The SEC does not endorse any particular product but understanding how these technologies work will inform policymakers as they seek to address the threats facing this nation without undermining our civil liberties. Several themes should guide the government’s work. Government should not assume ill-intent when people take steps to guard their privacy. Protecting one’s privacy should be the norm, not an indicator of criminal intent. Government should resist the temptation to force intermediation for the purpose of creating a regulatory beachhead or facilitating financial surveillance. Relatedly, the government should avoid imposing regulatory obligations, including Bank Secrecy Act obligations, on a software developer who does not have custody of users’ assets or the ability to override users’ choices.[vi] Additionally, the government should pursue bad actors who use privacy-protecting tools for nefarious purposes while protecting good actors who develop and publish these tools and the law-abiding citizens’ who use them to protect themselves from bad actors. I look forward to hearing builders and policy professionals on today’s panels discuss how we can use new technologies to protect this nation and to preserve the liberties that make it so special, including the freedom to live a private life. What better day to have this conversation than today, Bill of Rights Day. [i] National Archives and Records Administration, Bill of Rights Day, December 15, https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/bill-of-rights. [ii] Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Peanut Butter & Watermelon: Financial Privacy in the Digital Age, (Aug. 4, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-blockchain-conference-080425. [iii] GENIUS Act, S. 1582, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1582/text. [iv] U.S Department of the Treasury, Treasury Issues Request for Comment Related to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act (Aug 18, 2025), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0228. [v] See, e.g., Ethereum Cofounder Says He Used Now-Blacklisted Tornado Cash to Donate to Ukraine, Decrypt (Aug 9, 2022), https://decrypt.co/107075/ethereum-cofounder-used-blacklisted-tornado-cash-donate-ukraine. [vi] See, e.g., President's Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology at 6 (July 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf (“a software developer that does not maintain total independent control over value should not be considered as engaged in money transmission for purposes of the BSA.”).