Domestic

CBI thematic assessment on operational resilience in the MiFID investment firm sector

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has published a report outlining the findings of a thematic assessment on operational resilience in the MiFID investment firm sector, with a particular focus on implementation of the CBI’s cross industry guidance on operational resilience (the guidance).

While the CBI found there was a maturing of operational resilience frameworks during the thematic assessment, it noted there are varying degrees of maturity across the investment firms’ frameworks.

The CBI report sets out the findings of the thematic assessment and identifies the areas where some firms need to make enhancements, including mapping of critical business services and consideration of scenario testing. There were also instances where firm’s operational resilience frameworks did not align with existing risk management frameworks. Cyber and digital operational resilience also remain key areas of focus for the CBI, where they plan to conduct further work in 2026 and 2027.

The CBI expects all MiFID investment firms and their boards and senior management to revisit the guidance to consider their compliance, noting the updates made in July 2025 to align with DORA.

European

Opinion of ECJ Advocate General states that simply executing client orders does not automatically amount to insider dealing solely because a firm holds inside information

On 22 January 2026 the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice delivered an opinion following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in Case C‑773/24.

In a non-binding opinion, the Court of Justice Advocate General, Campos Sánchez-Bordona, concluded that investment firms that simply execute client orders in the normal course of their duties do not engage in insider dealing for the purposes of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) solely because they hold inside information about a client’s off-market pricing intentions. He also found that a firm may rebut the presumption of market abuse by showing they acted legitimately, without having to prove that the client did not use inside information.

The Advocate General delivered the following conclusions (non-binding opinion):

• Article 9(2)(b) of MAR must be interpreted as meaning that an investment firm which executes orders to sell securities on the regulated market, placed by a client under a standard services agreement, and, simultaneously, organises for that same client an accelerated bookbuilding and placement of securities procedure, does not engage in insider dealing unless the supervisory authority shows that: (a) the firm held inside information concerning the client’s intentions with regard to the price of the securities which were to be disposed of outside the regulated market; and (b) the firm’s conduct did not meet the applicable professional standards.
• Article 8(1) and Article 14(a) of MAR must be interpreted as meaning that an investment firm may rebut the presumption referred to in recital 24 of MAR by demonstrating that it confined itself to executing the order to dispose of its client’s shares legitimately and in the normal exercise of its activities, in accordance with the client’s instructions. It is not necessary for the firm to demonstrate that the client did not use inside information when it placed the order.

Date published: 26 February 2026

This publication provides an overview of certain legal and regulatory developments that may be of interest to certain entities. It does not purport to provide analysis of law or legal advice and is strictly for information purposes only.