MiFID II/MiFIR – divergence emergence?
Related people
Damian Carolan
Partner
London
Nick Bradbury
Partner
London
Louise Bralsford
Knowledge Lawyer
London
Brice Henry
Partner
Paris
Sylvia Kierszenbaum
Partner - Brussels
Antwerp
Dr Alexander Behrens
Partner
Frankfurt am Main
Gerard Kastelein
Partner
Amsterdam
Salvador Ruiz Bachs
Partner
Madrid
Petr Vybiral
Partner
Prague
Baptiste Aubry
Head of Finance regulatory
Luxembourg
Mia Dassas
Partner
Paris
Headlines in this article
Related news and insights
Blog Post: 04 April 2024
EU court’s judgment sheds new light on how the ECB should apply national administrative measures
Publications: 03 April 2024
Publications: 02 April 2024
Publications: 02 April 2024
In the UK, there have been changes under the EUWA on-shoring process; “quick-fix” amendments; and the beginnings of implementing the conclusions of the Wholesale Markets Review. Most recently, FSMA 2023 and the Commencement No 1 Regulations bring in transitional amendments to UK MiFIR from 29 August 2023.
In the EU, there were also “quick-fix” amendments in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the EU MiFID II/MiFIR Review has resulted in a number of proposals for substantive change.
The shifting pieces in the UK and EU are starting to now give rise to meaningful divergence, albeit in some cases both the UK and EU are making changes which seek to address the same regulatory policy issues or which overlap in part. However, the way in which changes have been made often belies their similarity, and means that comparing EU and UK versions of the text for provisions does not give the full picture. For example, where the UK has had to make changes via an on-shored regulation but the EU proposes to make changes at directive level, but the substance of the changes is the same.
Our summary below sets out the key moving parts on each side of the Channel, and assesses how divergent the changes really are.