News Articles

Fiserv To Present At Upcoming Investor Conferences

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:53:21 GMT

Fiserv, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISV), a leading global provider of payments and financial services technology solutions, announced its participation in the following investor conferences in May.

Fiserv will present at the following conferences:

J.P. Morgan 2026 Global Technology, Media, and Communications Conference (Mike Lyons, CEO)
- 3:35 p.m. ET on May 19
Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference (Mike Lyons, CEO)
- 3:30 p.m. on May 28

Live webcasts and archived replays will be available on the investor relations section of the Fiserv website at investors.fiserv.com.

MarketAxess To Host Conference Call Announcing First Quarter 2026 Financial Results On Thursday, May 7, 2026

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:35:20 GMT

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTX) the operator of a leading electronic trading platform for fixed-income securities, will issue a press release announcing its first quarter 2026 financial results on Thursday, May 7, 2026, before the market opens. Chris Concannon, Chief Executive Officer, and Ilene Fiszel Bieler, Chief Financial Officer, will host a conference call to provide a strategic update and discuss the Company’s financial results and outlook on Thursday, May 7, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. ET.

To access the conference call, please dial +1-800-715-9871 (U.S.) or +1-646-307-1963 (International) and use the ID 1832176. The Company will also host a live audio Webcast of the conference call on the Investor Relations section of the Company's website at http://investor.marketaxess.com. The Webcast will also be archived on http://investor.marketaxess.com for 90 days following the announcement.

Update On The SEC’s Work Toward Treasury Clearing Implementation, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, April 20, 2026

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:33:08 GMT

The Commission has taken important steps in the ongoing work to support the orderly and successful implementation of the Treasury Clearing Rule.[1] First, the Commission published for public comment a request for exemptive relief submitted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), which requests targeted modifications to the inter‑affiliate exemption contained in the Treasury Clearing Rule.[2] Second, the Commission reopened the comment period on the requested exemptive relief submitted earlier this year by the Institute of International Bankers (“IIB”), which addresses the extraterritorial application of the Trade Submission Requirement.[3]

Since being asked to oversee the Commission’s efforts to implement the Treasury Clearing Rule, I have emphasized the importance of transparency, collaboration, and methodical progress. The U.S. Treasury market—at nearly $29 trillion outstanding [4]—is the deepest and most liquid government securities market in the world, and the Commission must implement the clearing mandate in a way that preserves market functioning while enhancing resilience. To that end, we have engaged extensively with market participants as well as foreign and domestic regulators, and we have sought input from market participants to preemptively address questions that affect implementation. Our engagement on these exemptive requests continues that approach.

Requested Exemptive Relief for Inter-Affiliate Transactions

SIFMA’s request for exemptive relief would have the effect of expanding the set of affiliates eligible to rely on the inter‑affiliate exemption and introduce a tailored activity‑based threshold for certain non‑U.S. affiliate transactions. As stated in SIFMA’s request, many institutions depend on inter‑affiliate repo activity for internal liquidity, treasury, and collateral management—especially across time zones where covered clearing agencies do not operate on a 24‑hour basis. These are real‑world challenges that firms face as they prepare for the upcoming compliance dates. At the same time, the Treasury Clearing Rule aims to ensure that inter‑affiliate flows do not become a backdoor to avoid clearing transactions that would otherwise be required to be submitted.

We welcome comments on the notice and any data relevant to the potential effects of the requested relief on liquidity and competition, to help the Commission better understand the potential effects if such relief were to be granted.

Reopening the Comment Period on Requested Exemptive Relief for Extraterritorial Transactions

The Commission also reopened the comment period on the notice of IIB’s request for relief, which concerns transactions executed entirely outside the United States between non‑U.S. institutions. Market participants and foreign regulators have raised significant questions about the extraterritorial scope of the clearing mandate. Many non‑U.S. financial institutions operate through a mix of U.S. and non‑U.S. branches and affiliates, and applying the Trade Submission Requirement to transactions occurring wholly overseas can pose operational challenges, create legal uncertainty regarding enforceability of netting arrangements, and raise practical issues given time‑zone differences and the absence of 24‑hour clearing.

Because both SIFMA’s and IIB’s requests for relief may intersect in important ways—including competitive, operational, and structural considerations—it is appropriate to solicit further public input. We encourage commenters to address not only each request individually but also how the potential exemptions may, together, affect the overall environment for liquidity and competition in Treasury transactions and the core purposes of the Treasury Clearing Rule.

Work Completed to Date and Work Ahead

These actions build on meaningful progress achieved over the past year. For example, the Commission approved rule changes and conditional exemptive relief to support customer cross-margining of cash market positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared by a registered clearing agency and futures positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization.[5] This important development may help reduce margin requirements for market participants and improve capital efficiency across related cash and futures Treasury positions. The Commission has also approved new clearing agencies for Treasury securities [6] and approved several proposed rule changes from the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) to broaden client access to clearing.[7]

At the same time, significant work remains. Commission staff continue to assess issues related to the treatment of failed trades and clearing agency outages as well as customer protection considerations—issues that market participants have repeatedly identified as critical to their preparations.

Public Feedback is Critical

The Commission remains committed to working collaboratively with all market participants to ensure the U.S. Treasury market remains the deepest, most liquid, and most resilient government securities market in the world.[8] The success of the Treasury Clearing Rule implementation depends not only on the Commission’s actions but also on constructive engagement from market participants. I strongly encourage commenters to provide data‑driven, practical feedback on both exemptive requests. Any exemptive relief the Commission grants should work for all parties—addressing legitimate operational challenges while continuing to advance the purposes of the Treasury Clearing Rule.

Please see the SEC’s dedicated Treasury Clearing implementation webpage, which will be updated regularly as we address additional issues and provide further guidance, for more information.

[1] This rule, among other things, mandates the clearing of certain eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities by direct participants in covered clearing agencies. See Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies for U.S. Treasury Securities and Application of the Broker-Dealer Customer Protection Rule with Respect to U.S. Treasury Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 99149 (Dec. 13, 2023), 89 FR 2714 (Jan. 16, 2024) (the “Treasury Clearing Rule”).

[2] Notice of Request for Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, from Certain Aspects of Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 34-105262 (Apr. 17, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/exorders/2026/34-105262.pdf.

[3] Reopening of Comment Period; Notice of Request for Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, from Certain Aspects of Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 34-105261, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/exorders/2026/34-105261.pdf.

[4] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Market Value of Marketable Treasury Debt as of March 2026, available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MVMTD027MNFRBDAL.

[5] See “SEC Approves Exemptive Order and Proposed Rule Change to Permit Customer Cross-Margining in the U.S. Treasury Market” (Apr. 15, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-36-sec-approves-exemptive-order-proposed-rule-change-permit-customer-cross-margining-us-treasury-market.

[6] See CME Securities Clearing, Inc.; Order Granting an Application for Registration as a Clearing Agency under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104281 (Dec. 1, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/other/2025/34-104281.pdf; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting an Application for Registration as a Clearing Agency under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104762 (Jan. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/other/2026/34-104762.pdf.

[7] These include development of the FICC collateral-in-lieu model and the expansion of the FICC agent clearing service to triparty repos. See Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, to Establish a New Collateral-in-Lieu Offering Within the Sponsored GC Service, and Expand the Sponsored GC Service to Allow a Sponsoring Member to Submit for Clearing a “Done-Away” Sponsored GC Trade, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104374 (Dec. 12, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/ficc/2025/34-104374.pdf. See also Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Modify the GSD Rulebook Relating to a New Service Offering Called the ACS Triparty Service, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104492 (Dec. 22, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/ficc/2025/34-104492.pdf.

[8] The Commission extended the original compliance dates for the Treasury Clearing Rule by one year to Dec. 31, 2026, for eligible cash market transactions and June 30, 2027, for eligible repo market transactions. See Extension of Compliance Dates for Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies for U.S. Treasury Securities and Application of the Broker-Dealer Customer Protection Rule With Respect to U.S. Treasury Securities, Exchange Act Release No. 34-102487 (Feb. 25, 2025), 90 FR 11134 (Mar. 4, 2025).

Statement On The Amendments To Form PF, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, April 20, 2026

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:28:19 GMT

I am pleased to support the proposal to amend Form PF,[1] which represents a thoughtful recalibration of our regulatory approach to private fund reporting. Congress made a deliberate choice to exempt private funds from the Investment Company Act.[2] However, over the past several years, the Commission has sought to impose regulatory obligations on private funds that exceed the obligations imposed on mutual funds through the financial stability authority in the Investment Advisers Act.[3] Fortunately, the judicial system has served as a check on this unbounded reading of authority under the federal securities laws.[4]

The Commission’s authority is best exercised when read in context of the broader statutory framework. The proposed amendments reflect a careful consideration of the regulatory obligations imposed on private funds and their advisers with the objective that the Commission and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) receive the data necessary to monitor systemic risk and protect investors — and not to use Form PF as a backdoor attempt to more broadly regulate private funds.

The 2024 amendments to Form PF significantly expanded reporting requirements without adequate justification for additional data collection. It imposed disproportionate compliance burdens on smaller advisers and collected information that was neither actionable nor aligned with statutory authority. The amendments proposed today directly address these issues by, among other things, raising the reporting thresholds for all filers and large hedge fund advisers.[5] Importantly, the proposal includes a requirement that the Commission review the Form PF filing and reporting thresholds at least every five years to help ensure that these thresholds remain appropriately calibrated.[6]

Good regulation demands a careful evaluation of the benefits of information collection and the burdens imposed on those who must comply. The Commission’s willingness to revisit and revise Form PF in light of the extensive criticism of the 2024 amendments demonstrates a commitment to regulatory humility and effectiveness. By focusing reporting obligations on the largest and most systemically significant advisers, while relieving smaller entities of unnecessary costs, these amendments better align with the statutory mandate and promote a more resilient and competitive marketplace.

I commend the staff of the Division of Investment Management, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of the General Counsel for their diligent work, as well as the constructive engagement of market participants. The adoption of these amendments is a positive step toward a regulatory framework that is both robust and appropriately tailored, and I look forward to continued dialogue as we monitor the effectiveness of these reforms.

[1] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers, proposed Apr. 20, 2026, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6959.pdf.

[2] See, e.g., Investment Company Act of 1940 Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3(c)(1), (7).

[3] See Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews, 88 Fed. Reg. 63206 (Aug. 23, 2023) [17 CFR 275 (Nov. 19, 2024)], available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2024/ia-6773.pdf.

[4] National Association of Private Fund Managers v. SEC, No. 23-60471 (5th Cir. 2024), available at https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60471CV0.pdf.

[5] See supra note 1.

[6] Id.

CFTC Swaps Report Update

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 20:48:25 GMT

CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report has been updated, and is now available: http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm.

Additional information on the Weekly Swaps Report.

Released: Weekly on Mondays at 3:30 p.m.

“PF” Stands For Please Fix: Statement On The Proposed Amendments To Form PF, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, April 20, 2026

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:21:22 GMT

Today, the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) (collectively, “Commissions”) proposed amendments to eliminate certain Form PF filing and reporting obligations and to streamline others. My thanks to the hardworking staff in the Division of Investment Management, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and Office of the General Counsel and to the CFTC for their work on this proposal. I support this proposal and hope to receive robust feedback from investors, investment advisers, private funds, and other interested parties.

I have been hearing calls to fix Form PF since I started as a commissioner. Form PF generates a lot of data at great expense that does not present a useful window into private fund activity. To date, the Commissions’ response to these pleas has been to make the form more—rather than less—onerous. The granular data required by the 2024 amendments, for example, made an already problematic form worse, as commenters warned would happen.[1] The fundamental problem with Form PF is that it has wandered from its core purpose: generating information to assist FSOC in identifying and monitoring risks to the financial stability of the United States.[2]

Many of today’s proposed amendments acknowledge and address the concerns we have heard. If adopted, these amendments should help to restore Form PF to its intended purpose. I urge commenters to look closely at both the proposed changes and what is not changing so that you can tell us whether additional or alternative changes would better restore the form to its intended role. I would welcome feedback on, among other questions, the following:

The filing threshold for private fund advisers and the reporting threshold for large private fund advisers have not changed since the thresholds were adopted in 2011. Yet, as noted in the proposing release, the aggregated private fund gross asset value has more than tripled since 2013.[3] In addition, when we adopted the large private fund adviser reporting thresholds we noted that they were designed so that the group of large private fund advisers (including large hedge fund advisers) filing Form PF would be relatively small in number but represent a substantial portion of the assets of their respective industries.[4] The number of overall private fund adviser filers and the number of large private fund advisers have grown because the thresholds have not changed since they were adopted. The proposed amendments include an increase to the filing threshold for Form PF filers and the reporting threshold for large hedge fund advisers. Should we update other Form PF thresholds as well? Should we adopt amendments to require that these thresholds be updated periodically to account for inflation and industry changes?
The Commissions are proposing to pare back some of the 2024 amendments and other information currently required by Form PF. Do these changes align Form PF with its systemic risk purpose? Are other changes necessary? Should we, for example, eliminate questions 42 and 43 rather than slimming them down?
What information required by Form PF is useful in monitoring systemic risk and, conversely, what information is not?
For information that is or might be useful, do the benefits to FSOC and the Commissions of having that information outweigh the costs incurred by funds and advisers in compiling and reporting that information?

Now is the time to tell the Commissions what we got right and where we have gone astray.

[1] See, e.g., Comment Letter of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Oct. 11, 2022) at 4 (“The amendments under consideration represent a significant rewrite of Form PF and would require funds to provide extensive new streams of data unrelated to systemic risk.”), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-22-22/s72222-20145434-310656.pdf.

[2] See Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 was amended to require that an adviser must maintain records and reports for each private fund it advises, that include a description of the following: (1) the amount of assets under management and use of leverage, including off-balance-sheet leverage; (2) counterparty credit risk exposure; (3) trading and investment positions; (4) valuation policies and practices of the fund; (5) types of assets held; (6) side arrangements or side letters, whereby certain investors in a fund obtain more favorable rights or entitlements than other investors; (7) trading practices. The statute also allows the Commissions to require the disclosure of other information, including for investor protection purposes, but the statute’s primary objective is to inform the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which—as its name suggests—has a systemic risk monitoring and mitigation mandate.

[3] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 6959 (Apr. 20, 2026) at 15, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6959.pdf.

[4] Id. at 22.

FINRA Strengthens External Relations Leadership With Two Senior Appointments - Chris Rosello Heads Global Government Affairs And Chris Spina Heads Corporate Communications

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:24:49 GMT

FINRA announced today two key additions to our senior leadership team to enhance engagement with regulators, policymakers, industry stakeholders and the media.

Chris Rosello

Chris Spina

Chris Rosello joined FINRA on April 6 as Senior Vice President, Global Government Affairs, bringing together the Office of Government Affairs and the Office of International Affairs under unified leadership. Based in Washington, D.C., Rosello oversees FINRA's strategic engagement with federal, state and international regulators, Congress and other key stakeholders on legislative and regulatory matters affecting the securities industry.

Chris Spina joined FINRA today as Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications. Also based in Washington, D.C., Spina leads FINRA's strategic communications, media relations and public engagement efforts to advance FINRA’s mission of protecting investors and safeguarding market integrity, while strengthening relationships with key audiences.

Both senior leaders report to Marcia Asquith, Executive Vice President, Board and External Relations at FINRA, and bring extensive experience at the intersection of financial regulation, government relations and strategic communications.

"In today's rapidly changing environment, staying connected with our stakeholders has never been more vital. Chris Rosello and Chris Spina are outstanding leaders who bring deep experience and strong relationships across the regulatory and business communities. They have a proven ability to build meaningful connections and work through complex challenges. I am confident they will help us strengthen our partnerships and better communicate how FINRA protects investors and keeps our markets fair and trustworthy. We are thrilled to welcome them to the team,” said Asquith.

Chris Rosello has more than 25 years of experience in corporate government relations and public service. Most recently, he served as Vice President and Head of Federal Government Relations at MetLife, where he led the company's engagement with U.S. government regulators and elected officials on various policy initiatives and strategic priorities. His career includes key positions at HSBC Bank USA and Wells Fargo, where he advocated on regulatory and legislative matters.

He also has substantial government experience, having served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where he played a significant role in legislative strategy for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and as Senior Advisor for Congressional Affairs at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. He spent eight years in the U.S. House of Representatives, including as Legislative Director and as professional staff on the House Financial Services Committee. He is a graduate of Albany State University and Johns Hopkins University.

Chris Spina brings nearly 25 years of experience in strategic communications, media relations and government affairs across some of the nation's most complex and highly regulated organizations. Most recently, he served as Vice President of Corporate Communications at Freddie Mac, where he led the company’s communications and government and industry relations functions. In that role, he developed integrated communications strategies to engage key stakeholders, including policymakers, trade associations and industry influencers.

Prior to Freddie Mac, he held significant roles at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, where he served as Senior Advisor for Public Affairs to the agency chairman, developing public affairs strategies on a host of complex regulatory issues, including oversight of the derivatives markets. He also served as Communications Director for the House Committee on Financial Services, where he directed communications for the committee's ranking member and managed media relations on issues ranging from broker-dealer oversight and mortgage finance to capital markets rules and derivatives. He holds a J.D. from Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and a B.A. in Political Science from Providence College.

AMF Québec, Ontario Securities Commission And AMF France Enter Into An Agreement To Support Cross-Listing Of Securities In Canada And France

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:15:34 GMT

The Autorité des marchés financiers in Québec (AMF Québec), the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and the Autorité des Marchés Financiers in France (AMF France) entered into an agreement intended to support the initial cross-listing of securities on an exchange, by way of prospectus, in Canada and France by establishing a new collaborative procedure that will facilitate dialogue and information sharing between securities regulators in the two countries.

“Canada’s capital markets are navigating a period of rapid change shaped by global economic uncertainty,” said Yves Ouellet, President and CEO of the AMF Québec. “In this context, the AMF Québec and OSC continue supporting the competitiveness of Canada’s capital markets, keeping with the commitment taken by the Canadian Securities Administrators in April 2025 This link will open in a new window.”

“Co-operation and information sharing across global jurisdictions is important to facilitate the regulation of cross-listed issuers,” said Grant Vingoe, CEO of the OSC. “This agreement is another way we can support Canadian issuers by opening up new possibilities.”

“In recent years, the AMF France has demonstrated its ability to support the attractiveness of the French capital markets, which is one of our key strategic priorities” said Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, Chair of the AMF France. “We pursue this ambition by promoting the French vision of a financial system that is robust, resilient, innovative and competitive, attentive to investor protection and geared towards financing the economy. This agreement is of great importance and confirms both the competitiveness of the Paris financial centre and the excellent relationships we maintain with our Canadian counterparts at AMF Québec and the OSC.”

Under the agreement, Canadian and French companies seeking to cross-list their securities in France and Canada by way of a prospectus will have to comply with the regulatory requirements of both countries and applicable exchange requirements. The agreement does not provide regulatory relief. However, Canadian and French companies will benefit from increased support and assistance from the AMF Québec, OSC and AMF France throughout the prospectus review process.

BIS: Statement On The Appointment Of Hyun Song Shin As Governor Of The Bank Of Korea

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:16:17 GMT

The General Manager of the BIS, Pablo Hernández de Cos, made the following statement today on the announcement that Hyun Song Shin has been appointed to serve as Governor of the Bank of Korea.

I want to warmly congratulate Hyun as he takes on the role of Governor of the Bank of Korea. Since he joined the BIS in 2014, Hyun has provided intellectual leadership and strategic direction to the work of the BIS, advancing our research and analytical work to support the central banking community, and has been a key member of the management of the Bank as part of our Executive Committee team.

Pablo Hernández de Cos, General Manager of the BIS

Background

It was previously announced that Hyun Song Shin will be succeeded by Hélène Rey, effective September 2026. In the interim, the Monetary and Economic Department will be led by Frank Smets as Acting Head of the Monetary and Economic Department.

London Stock Exchange Group plc ("LSEG") Transaction In Own Shares

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 17:59:25 GMT

LSEG announces it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each from Goldman Sachs International ("GSI") on the London Stock Exchange as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 09 April 2026

Date of Purchase	Number of ordinary shares purchased	Highest price paid per share	Lowest price paid per share	Volume weighted price paid per share
2026-04-13	159,022	£91.8000	£89.3400	£90.7553
2026-04-14	217,628	£93.1000	£91.5800	£92.2058
2026-04-15	218,574	£92.9200	£92.0400	£92.4926
2026-04-16	216,216	£95.1400	£91.5000	£94.0812
2026-04-17	210,305	£96.7400	£94.1800	£95.8666

LSEG intends to cancel the purchased shares.

Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 495,279,915 ordinary shares of 679/86pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 21,451,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 495,279,915. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.

In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (the Market Abuse Regulation) (as such legislation forms part of retained EU law as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter), a full breakdown of the individual purchases by GSI on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at:

ttp://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/1793B_1-2026-4-20.pdf