2026 changes to the Market Abuse Regulation: What issuers need to know

The Listing Act introduced the most significant changes to the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) since 2016: new disclosure rules for protracted processes, higher sanctions but also tighter expectations from regulators. While the core objective of MAR remains unchanged, to protect market integrity and ensure equal access to information, the way issuers meet these obligations is evolving.

During our webinar “Preparing for the MAR 2026 Changes: What Issuers Need to Know” Tatyana Valkova, Chief Risk and Compliance Officer at Euronext, Petra Heindl, Attorney-at-Law at Kinstellar and Emil Burman, Senior Product Manager for the Compliance Solutions at Euronext Corporate Solutions answered core questions around MAR requirements brought to issuers with the introduction of the Listing Act. The three experts provided different perspectives from legal to practical takeaways and best practices for compliance professionals at listed companies.

Read a short recap of the webinar with the key takeaways.

Free download

Are you looking for a clear overview of how the Listing Act changes apply to MAR?

Download our whitepaper for compliance and legal professionals and share it with your team.

Download whitepaper

What are the most common struggles or mistakes issuers face under the current MAR regime?

According to the panellists, these are the main pain points:

1. Determining when information becomes inside information. Pinpointing the exact moment at which information meets the MAR definition of inside information remains a key challenge.

2. Identifying and managing inside information at an early stage. Issuers often spend too much time trying to avoid concluding that inside information already exists (for example, through cautious email drafting). A more effective approach is to focus early on confidentiality measures, access controls and maintaining a confidentiality list that can later be converted into a formal insider list

3. Maintaining MAR-compliant records. Issuers often struggle to maintain records in the format expected by ESMA, particularly in relation to retention requirements. MAR compliance should be treated as an ongoing governance responsibility rather than a purely documentary exercise.

During the webinar, participants responded to the poll question “Which area of change will be hardest to implement internally?”. 28.6% of compliance professionals answered that “Adjusting internal workflows” could be a challenge. Does this reflect what you are seeing in the market?

Petra Heindl confirmed that the reforms affect the whole internal decision-making process – from escalation, identification of decision-maker and involvement of legal and compliance to proper documentation – not just the legal analysis. She highlighted that companies’ internal processes often grow organically without being formalised, which can result in unclear responsibilities and difficulties coordinating across functions and jurisdictions during fast-moving events.

How does Euronext approach regulatory change, using the Listing Act as an example, and what governance practices could other issuers adopt?

Tatyana Valkova recommended that issuers monitor regulatory developments at an early stage and begin preparing before final measures are published. Once the requirements become clearer, issuers should map existing processes against the new rules to identify any gaps and determine where changes may be needed.

Using the Listing Act as an example, she noted that Euronext reviewed the Disclosure Committee's terms of reference, mandate and governance framework and complemented these changes with awareness and training sessions.

As a pan-European market infrastructure, Euronext also monitors how local regulators implement the rules across different jurisdictions to help ensure a consistent approach to compliance. She highlighted the Disclosure Committee as a key governance practice that other issuers could adopt. This involves ensuring the right people are involved at the appropriate level, bringing together diverse functions to support well-informed decisions and maintaining a clear audit trail documenting each decision.

What does the ESMA aggregated sanctions report show about enforcement focus, and how to be proactive?

Petra Heindl explained that the most frequently sanctioned area remains delayed disclosure of inside information. This typically reflects weaknesses in early identification and in the ability to make timely, justified and well-documented disclosure decisions. 

She noted that regulators are also increasingly focusing on deficiencies in insider lists, even in the absence of insider trading allegations with supervisory reviews such as those conducted by the Austrian FMA. In addition, failures relating to PDMR notifications continue to attract sanctions, as they are viewed as indicators of a weak compliance culture. 

While the formal sanctions framework under MAR has not materially changed, she emphasised that practical enforcement exposure has increased. Issuers should therefore strengthen governance, improve process management and ensure organisational readiness to demonstrate compliance in practice.

What do issuers tend to underestimate about the operational effort involved in implementing regulatory change?

Emil Burman stressed that it is typically the downstream internal work that is underestimated, including retraining staff, updating templates and reconfiguring workflows by the implementation deadline. He emphasised that organisation-wide education is critical, as the most effective compliance tool is a culture of compliance that extends beyond a single function or team.

What is one key piece of advice for issuers right now?

The panellists emphasised several points:

1. Do not wait to act. Prepare the processes, organisational structures, documentation and supporting tools early to ensure insider lists remain up to date and regulator requests can be answered quickly.

2. Conduct a gap analysis. Assess current arrangements against the revised framework, update templates and delayed-disclosure documentation and review the Disclosure Committee's mandate. Brief the board and senior management, as MAR is increasingly a board-level governance topic.

3. Avoid fragmented manual compliance. Manual MAR processes carry significant risk, particularly under the evolving framework. Centralisation creates structure and structure reduces risk; the key test is whether processes can withstand regulatory scrutiny, not whether they are efficient.