A round-up of EU financial services developments.

A round-up of EU financial services developments.

A round-up of EU financial services developments.

This Practice Note discusses the key provisions of the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive 2014/49/EU (DGSD), which requires Member States to establish a deposit guarantee scheme (DGS) to protect depositors and improve financial stability by controlling the risk of a run on the bank. The DGSD recast Directive (EC) 94/19/EC (the original DGSD), which was repealed and replaced by the DGSD in the interests of clarity as it had been substantially amended over the years. As the UK was an EU Member State when the DGSD began to apply, the recast EU DGSD was implemented in the UK, this Practice Note considers both the EU requirements and the UK’s implementation of the EU DGSD. Background and introduction to the DGSD TheDGSD is one of two existing EU guarantee scheme directives. The other, the Investor Compensation Schemes Directive 97/9/EC (ICSD) is discussed in Practice Note: Investor Compensation Schemes Directive. The original DGSD was introduced in 1994 and only required a minimum level of harmonisation between domestic DGSs in the EU. It proved disruptive for financial stability

WARNING These template replies to enquiries are intended only as a framework and starting point to assist the Seller in building their bespoke replies to enquiries. They are not a recommended, comprehensive or conclusive list and should not be used without careful consideration and bespoke amendment to suit the particular transaction. The replies given to enquiries before contract are representations made by the seller to the buyer and the buyer is entitled to rely on them in deciding whether or not to proceed with the transaction. It is imperative that they are correctly tailored to the specific matter and do not include any false or flippant statements. They should also not contain any generic statements, such as ‘Not to the Seller’s knowledge’, unless the Seller has made an effort to discover a more comprehensive answer to the enquiry. Such a response contains within it an implication that the Seller has itself made reasonable enquiries relation to the enquiry in question. You must stress

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: COVID-19 business insurance litigation returns with test case appeal; the case of Tyson International Company Ltd v GIC RE, India Corporate Member Ltd (sued as the sole corporate member for Syndicate 1947 at Lloyd's of London for the 2021 and 2022 years of account); UK property insurance claims highest since 2007; an update to the Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025; UK insurance premium tax haul up 10%, hits record £6.7bn; BoE delivers speech on new stress test approach for banks and other parts of the financial sector; FCA and PRA respond to UK government’s call for regulators to support economic growth; FCA urged to act against high insurance claim rejections; Insurance brokers call for reduced regulatory burden; Why non-financial misconduct should be on firms’ radar; Insurance Europe submits responses to EIOPA's Solvency II review consultations; Closing the gap–EIOPA and ECB announce proposals to close insurance protection gap; cases and decisions; key dates for your diary; and other news highlights reported over the past week.

The Welsh Government has published comprehensive risk guidance for Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in Wales, highlighting new Welsh Housing Quality Standard requirements effective from 1 April 2026 mandating 24-hour investigation of damp and mould hazards with imminent harm risk. It sets out the principal risks facing the sector and expects boards to respond through strong governance, robust financial management and effective risk oversight. The guidance identifies a challenging operating environment shaped by economic uncertainty, inflation, high borrowing and operating costs, and policy change, requiring prudent financial planning, stress testing, and careful balancing of investment between new development, existing homes and tenant services, while maintaining affordability and income stability.

This week’s edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: NFU Mutual sued for £10.5m over coronavirus (COVID-19) business losses; why Ukraine aircraft insurance case failed to take off in UK; government launches review of personal injury compensation rate; ABI and insurtech trade group agree to co-operate on innovation; Insurance Europe sets out its priorities for the EU; consumer complaints soar about insurers delaying payouts; PRA outlines next steps for the 2025 dynamic general insurance stress test; cases & decisions; key dates for your diary; and other news highlights reported over the past week.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) requested feedback on the use of tokenised collateral and stablecoins in derivatives markets. In its response, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) highlighted that tokenisation could significantly improve collateral mobility, liquidity management, and operational efficiency through near-instantaneous settlement and automation. ISDA noted that these innovations may reduce counterparty and settlement risk, lower transaction costs, and enhance resilience during market stress. It also identified potential applications, such as tokenised money market funds and other eligible assets, which could streamline collateral processes and support 24/7 trading.

Human Rights Watch has published a statement raising concerns about the UK government’s plan to use artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition technology to assess the age of asylum-seeking children. The government announced on 22 July 2025 that it intends to pilot the technology in 2026, citing cost-efficiency as a key factor. Human Rights Watch notes that facial age estimation tools have not been independently validated for use in immigration contexts and may not reliably account for the physical effects of trauma, malnutrition, and stress, which can influence a child’s appearance. The organisation highlights the potential consequences of misclassification, including denial of protections afforded to minors.

The right for an employee to take time off from work for holidays may arise under contract or statute. While the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 provide for a minimum entitlement to holiday, an employee or worker's contract may entitle them to more generous holidays. For further information, see Practice Note: Dealing with stress and mental ill health in the workplace, in particular the main sections dealing with ‘Statutory holiday entitlement’ and ‘Contractual holiday entitlement’. Stipulating when an employee must take holiday The WTR 1998 permit an employer to specify when during the year holiday must be taken (eg during an annual shutdown period), or when it cannot be taken (eg at the financial year end or in busy retail periods) (see WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, reg 15(2)). The WTR 1998 set out a procedure and timescales for the employer to notify the employee when it does or does not want the employee to take leave (WTR

On 20 November 2024, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) published a standalone finalised version of the Fast Track tests and conditions. This document, which was previously published as Appendix 1 of TPR’s response to Fast Track and regulatory approach consultation, sets out the parameters a DB scheme must satisfy when submitting an actuarial valuation (being a valuation with an effective date on or after 22 September 2024) under the Fast Track route. In broad terms, the Fast Track route has parameters relating to funding and investment stress, technical provisions, investment risk and the recovery plan. When finalising the Fast Track parameters, TPR made some minor alterations, among other things, to clarify its intentions.