Search for:
Category

Submenue

Category

On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed into law the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of digital asset regulation. As the first comprehensive federal framework governing payment stablecoins, the GENIUS Act introduces a robust regulatory regime designed to enhance market integrity and consumer protection. The GENIUS Act will take effect on the earlier of (i) January 18, 2027 (i.e., 18 months following enactment) or (ii) 120 days following the issuance of final implementing regulations. This relatively short compliance runway underscores the urgency for stakeholders to begin preparing now.

On 9 July 2025, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution pressing for sweeping reforms in the e-commerce and imports sector, with a focus on consumer protection, product regulation, and unfair competition.1 The resolution sets out a series of measures, including calling for the swift implementation of the Digital Product Passport (DPP), strengthened customs enforcement through reform of the Union Customs Code (UCC), and the removal of the EUR 150 customs duty exemption for low-value consignments. The resolution will now be put submitted to the European Council and the European Commission for consideration.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a policy statement (PS25/9: New rules for the public offers and admissions to trading regime) under which it sets out the rules for the new regime that will apply in respect of prospectuses. This follows the consultation process the FCA undertook via the previous publication of consultation papers CP 25/2 and CP 24/12. The Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024 (POATRs) will replace the UK Prospectus Regulation (UKPR). The POATRs are generally in line with the proposals consulted on, with some modifications to reflect feedback from market participants. The new rules will come into effect on 19 January 2026.

For the first time, the European Commission completed an investigation under the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) and implemented measures to limit the participation of economic operators from non-EU countries – in this particular case, China – in the EU public procurement market. After EU suppliers of medical devices have arguably been denied fair access to Chinese government contract opportunities for years, the EU has now responded with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1197 that requires contracting authorities/entities in all EU member states to exclude Chinese suppliers – and to a certain extent products manufactured in China – from larger public procurement contracts for medical devices.

On July 4, 2025, the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, making important changes to the Internal Revenue Code. The Act has implications for US and non-US companies and their domestic and international transactions, capital investment, and research and development activities, amongst other areas, which carry significant weight for the cryptocurrency/digital asset industry. From cryptocurrency exchanges, payment processors, asset managers and cryptocurrency funds to mining companies, token issuers, custodians, and centralized or decentralized lending platforms, the Act’s provisions reshape the tax landscape in ways that demand close attention.

In recent years, the European Union has intensified its efforts to combat the abusive use of corporate structures lacking real substance, particularly in the tax domain. In this context, the ATAD III Directive proposal emerged, aimed at limiting the tax benefits of so-called “shell companies”. Although its implementation would have significantly impacted holding entities such as Spanish ETVEs, the project was ultimately abandoned in June 2025. This document analyzes the scope of the proposal, its implications, and current recommendations for groups with international structures.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service, has launched a Whistleblower Rewards Program to combat antitrust crimes. Following the DOJ Criminal Division’s launch of a whistleblower pilot program last year,1 the Antitrust Division is now offering a reward to whistleblowers. Under the new program, individuals who report credible and timely evidence of antitrust collusion—such as price-fixing or bid-rigging and certain monopolization cases—may receive up to 30% of recovered criminal fines. This marks a significant step in expanding detection tools for antitrust violations, with reports to be submitted through a dedicated DOJ webpage.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently published a concept release seeking public comment on redefining the term “foreign private issuer” (FPI). The current framework provides FPIs with less regulation than domestic issuers, based on the understanding that FPIs face different circumstances, such as compliance with home country laws. However, a recent study revealed significant changes in the FPI population, including an increase in China-based issuers incorporated in lightly regulated tax havens. The SEC is concerned that the current FPI definition may no longer be suitable and is considering potential amendments.

In response to heightened scrutiny over country of origin declarations amid ongoing global tariff tensions, Singapore Customs issued Circular No. 06/2025 on 9 June 2025 to provide important clarification on the applicable preferential and non-preferential rules of origin when declaring the “country of origin” for importation into, exportation out of, and transshipments through Singapore.

The new DOJ FCPA enforcement policy emphasizes US national security and business interests, moving away from solely prosecuting bribery of foreign officials. The focus will be on bribes involving Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), cartels, and those impacting US competitiveness or national security. Routine, locally accepted business practices are deprioritized. The DOJ will exercise discretion to determine if conduct genuinely impacts US interests, leaving other cases to the SEC or foreign regulators. This creates a more nuanced and unpredictable enforcement environment, with clarity expected only as enforcement patterns emerge.