Page Contents
Related areas
Use of tokenised collateral in CCPs - ESMA seeks evidence
On 9 October 2026, ESMA launched a call for evidence (CfE) on the potential use of tokenised collateral by central counterparties (CCPs).
Tokenisation is moving to real-world use in financial markets, evidenced, for example, by the issue of tokenised share classes by money market funds. Collateral mobilisation is emerging as particularly relevant for central clearing. ESMA is seeking evidence on whether, and under what conditions, tokenised forms of collateral could be used safely and effectively by EU CCPs.
ESMA’s view is that analysis should consider both tokenised securities and tokenised forms of cash. Tokenised securities may potentially be used as collateral to satisfy initial margin and default fund contribution requirements, while tokenised cash such as tokenised central bank money or other tokenised settlement assets may also support the settlement of variation margin obligations.
ESMA considers the implications of operating models of “digital twin” and natively issued assets. It acknowledges that there may be combinations of both and other potential models.
The CfE is not intended to reassess or expand the categories of assets eligible as CCP collateral. Rather, it focuses on understanding whether the use of tokenisation may affect the way otherwise eligible assets are mobilised, transferred, managed, protected and realised, and whether existing regulatory and supervisory frameworks remain adequate in that context. Some processes, such as valuation methodologies or eligibility criteria, may remain largely unchanged by tokenisation. Others, such as mobilisation, allocation and confirmation of collateral may be significantly affected.
ESMA is of the view that tokenisation should not alter the fundamental requirements applicable to CCP collateral, including legal enforceability, settlement certainty, prudent valuation, liquidity and haircuts and operational resilience. The CfE sets out issues to consider in relation to each of these themes in turn.
The legal considerations are assessed under three sub-themes:
Next steps
All interested stakeholders have until 15 January 2027 to submit feedback.
ESMA publishes guidance on impact and climate transition claims
On 12 October 2026, ESMA published the third and fourth notes in its series of thematic notes on sustainability-related claims, focusing respectively on impact claims and climate transition claims communicated by market participants in non-regulatory oral and written communications. These communications include marketing materials and voluntary reporting, rather than disclosures required under specific regulatory frameworks, such as fund or bond prospectuses, management reports, funds' KIDs or benchmark statements.
The notes form part of ESMA's wider work on addressing greenwashing risks. They do not create new regulatory requirements but seek to remind market participants of their responsibilities to ensure sustainability-related claims are clear, fair and not misleading.
The thematic note on impact claims concentrates on statements that explicitly or implicitly refer to "impact", "positive change" or similar concepts in relation to financial products and investment strategies. ESMA notes that such claims are increasingly used in connection with investment funds, use-of-proceeds bonds and sustainability-linked bonds and highlights the importance of clearly communicating three core elements of impact investing: intentionality, additionality and measurability. ESMA also stresses the need to distinguish between investee impact and investor impact and to explain how impact objectives are achieved, measured and monitored.
The thematic note on climate transition claims focuses on claims concerning the gradual improvement of the climate performance of companies, assets or activities towards a climate-neutral economy. ESMA notes that such claims are becoming increasingly common in relation to transition-focused investment products, benchmarks, bonds and investment strategies, particularly in high-emitting or hard-to-abate sectors. Given the forward-looking nature of such claims, ESMA highlights the importance of clearly communicating the transition ambition, the implementation strategy and action plan, and the progress achieved against previously disclosed objectives, targets and milestones.
Across both notes, ESMA identifies a number of practices that may give rise to greenwashing risks, including the use of sustainability-related terminology without adequate explanation or substantiation, reliance on broad aspirational statements, insufficient transparency regarding methodologies and metrics, and limited reporting on progress against stated objectives. ESMA also highlights the importance of explaining key assumptions, providing meaningful supporting evidence and avoiding communications that could overstate sustainability outcomes or create misleading impressions regarding environmental or social benefits.
Like ESMA's previous thematic notes, both publications provide practical do's and don'ts and examples of good and poor practices to support clear, fair and not misleading sustainability disclosures and to address greenwashing risks in support of sustainable investments.
ESMA reports on 2025 sanctions and measures in EEA Member States
On 15 October 2026, ESMA published its annual report on sanctions and measures imposed by national competent authorities (NCAs) in EEA Member States during 2025. A total of 955 administrative sanctions and measures were imposed, with administrative fines totalling approximately €81.9m. AIFMD accounted for 268 sanctions and measures (up from 209 in 2024) and approximately €5.92m in fines, 74% of which were imposed in France. The UCITS Directive accounted for 40 sanctions and measures and approximately €4.96m in fines.
ESMA reported no AIFMD sanctioning activity in Ireland or the Netherlands in 2025, despite the considerable size of their AIF markets. It also noted that the correlation between UCITS market size and sanctioning activity does not apply in the biggest markets, Luxembourg and Ireland. The most frequently sanctioned AIFMD provisions were Article 18(1) (resources) and Article 12(1)(c) (resources and procedures). Under the UCITS Directive, Article 12(1)(a) (administrative and accounting procedures and internal controls) was again the most frequently sanctioned provision. ESMA found that, besides a limited number of NCAs, the number and amount of AIFMD and UCITS sanctions remain relatively low considering the maturity of the market.
European Supervisory Authorities set out 2027 priorities
The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) published its 2027 work programme. Under DORA, priorities relevant to funds and fund managers include continued supervisory convergence and ICT incident analysis, including an annual report on major ICT related incidents. They also include oversight of critical ICT third-party providers. The ESAs expect to draft revised PRIIPs KID technical standards, focusing on simpler performance and cost sections. Timing depends on the retail investment strategy and may be in 2028. The ESAs will monitor the SFDR Level 1 review and prepare for any new mandates. They will also give the European Commission technical advice as it prepares a potential legislative proposal under the DORA review.
For more information on these topics please contact any member of A&L Goodbody's Asset Management & Investment Funds team.
Date published: 29 October 2026