The WBF amended Annex 2 of the Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber dem Sudan (SR 946.231.18), with the change effective Wednesday, 4 June at 23:00. If your screening cycle last ran before Wednesday midnight, the update is not in your system yet. As we noted in May, the Sudan regime runs on the autonomous Swiss mandate — not the EU mirror track — so the lag pattern differs from Russia or Ukraine. The practical consequence: if you have calibrated your refresh cadence to the EU-parallel schedules, Sudan falls through the gap.

The FINMA consultation on the partial revision of the AMLO-FINMA closes Monday, 9 June. The four-week window opened on 12 May; it is now a weekend. Three clauses raise the evidentiary bar on beneficial ownership transparency in ways that will affect structured-ownership relationships across wealth management. The "keine neuen Pflichten" framing in the FINMA communication is technically accurate and practically misleading: what changes is the standard of proof required to discharge existing duties — which in practice means more documentation, more frequent refresh, more conversations with relationship managers about what they actually know. If your institution has a position, this is the weekend to file it.

Casimir von Firn's analysis today covers what the Omnibus revision to the CSDDD means for Swiss exporters: the compliance perimeter has contracted sharply, and Swiss companies' CSDDD exposure runs through direct EU threshold application to non-EU entities — not through dynamic adoption under Bilateral III, which covers different sectoral agreements. The due diligence programme your team sized to the 2024 perimeter is now significantly over-built relative to what the EU actually requires of it.

That is not a simple reason to strip it back. EU counterparties may have embedded the prior standard into contract representations, and some sectors face stricter domestic requirements regardless of what the CSDDD floor does. But it is a reason to map what you are doing against the revised thresholds and document the gap — both for internal governance and for the next round of counterparty negotiations. The revised thresholds are EU law; Swiss companies above the new limits remain in scope regardless of what Switzerland does domestically.

Dr. iur. Servatius von Tatzenberg's piece today covers the General Court ruling (Case T-1078/23, 3 June 2026) on Meta's challenge to its DMA gatekeeper designation: the Messenger designation was upheld; the Marketplace designation was annulled. The Marketplace annulment turned entirely on inadequate reasoning — the Commission failed to account for material changes to the service as of July 2023 — not on any narrowed reading of "core platform service." The Commission can cure the defect by reissuing the Marketplace designation with a properly reasoned analysis. For Swiss in-house counsel: because the court left the substantive definition intact, no narrowed perimeter emerges for DSA Art. 13 representative obligation arguments — the doctrinal boundary questions remain open across both instruments, with the same unresolved territory on either track.

SECO amended the Taliban list (SR 946.231.07), effective 29 April 2026, and the ISIL/Al-Qaida list (SR 946.231.08) in April. The two lists run on separate UN mandates: the Taliban list operates under UNSCR 1988 (the standalone committee established by the 2011 split from the original Al-Qaida and Taliban body), the ISIL/Al-Qaida list under UNSCR 1267/2253 — the same autonomous framework we analysed in May: names bind immediately in Switzerland on both tracks, without the lag that characterises the autonomous sanction regimes. If your screening infrastructure filters by country of origin rather than by list membership, it is missing both. Country-based screening is not a substitute for name-list matching on either UNO-Schiene track.

The February FINMA feed item reflects the 19th package absorption. The 20th package was adopted on 23 April 2026, and Annex 8 updates have been appearing since. If you are tracking the MAC-clause implications for existing transaction agreements, the relevant question is not which names were added but which sectoral restrictions changed — those are the provisions that affect deal economics rather than counterparty screening lists.

The MBaer liquidation is settled, but the pattern it established is not. FINMA withdrew the licence; FinCEN simultaneously proposed to designate MBaer as a primary money laundering concern under Section 311, with the rulemaking in public consultation at the time; the Federal Administrative Court granted suspensive effect on appeal. The sequencing matters: a proposed Section 311 rule generates reputational and market pressure before it becomes legally binding, and a Swiss appellate stay does not pause Washington's procedural timeline. Any institution with US dollar correspondent exposure should have cross-border enforcement sequencing on its compliance risk register by now.

Hunton Andrews Kurth is closing its China office. Pinsent Masons is simultaneously forming a joint venture with a Chinese commercial firm in the Qianhai free-trade zone. Both pieces ran in Law.com this week. These are not contradictory bets — they reflect two different readings of where foreign legal access is headed on the mainland.

Hunton reads the regulatory trajectory as increasingly hostile to full-service foreign practice. Pinsent is betting that Qianhai's JV structure is a durable carve-out. For Swiss companies with ongoing China counsel needs, the practical question is whether you want coverage from a firm operating inside JV constraints or from one that retains full independence and covers China matters out of Hong Kong or Singapore. Neither answer is wrong yet — but the window for making that choice freely is narrowing.

A consortium of major firms — Hogan Lovells and Cadwalader among them — announced a global legal technology alliance. The announcement is less interesting for what the tools do (AI-assisted drafting, contract review) than for what the formation signals: firm competition is increasingly being fought on tooling infrastructure rather than headcount, and the quality gap between a tooled global firm and a regional one will widen faster than billing rates reflect. For in-house counsel managing panel reviews, this is worth tracking on document-intensive cross-border mandates where throughput, not partner judgment, is the primary cost driver.

The Swissinfo background piece is useful for briefing non-Swiss counterparties who ask why their deal might face scrutiny. But it lags the legislative reality: the Investitionsprüfgesetz has already emerged as a more serious screening instrument than its original "light touch" framing suggested — the parliamentary process added teeth. The practical consequence for deal teams is that the screening risk question belongs in the term sheet conversation, not the due diligence phase.

FINMA announced in February that its Zurich office will move from the city centre to Oerlikon — lower cost per workstation, better working conditions. Take the stated rationale at face value. For practitioners who schedule in-person meetings with FINMA Zurich staff: the address changes. Budget fifteen extra minutes from the Hauptbahnhof, and note that Bern remains the primary location. Any meeting that needs a decision-maker is still a Bern meeting.