The industry ban under Art. 33 FINMAG is not a firm sanction relabelled as personal — it severed the adviser from the regulated space directly from the outset, and Servatius von Tatzenberg's piece today maps precisely where that distinction bites in practice. If your wealth management arm compensates advisers under a model where misconduct liability flows back contractually, the post-Wendelspiess risk calculus looks different: the ban exposure was already personal, and the indemnification structure was never addressing that exposure.

The parallel to the GwV-FINMA ownership-transparency revisions — mapped in May before the June 9 consultation deadline — is worth drawing: both instruments move regulatory risk toward the individual. Art. 33 FINMAG does it in conduct; the revised GwV-FINMA does it in AML. The direction of travel is consistent, and it predates Wendelspiess by several policy cycles.

The 24-hour window under Art. 74a ff. ISG opens when the incident is detected, not when scope is confirmed — and that distinction eliminates the assessment buffer most IT security teams assumed they had. Casimir von Firn's piece today provides the procedural scaffolding. Together with the catalogue-scope analysis from June and the Art. 74h fine-exposure piece from May, this completes the minimum briefing package any critical infrastructure operator needs before the next tabletop exercise.

Gross negligence voids the limitation clause under Art. 100 OR, and in cloud and IT outsourcing contracts, gross negligence is rarely hypothetical. Today's piece from Casimir von Firn extends the May void-or-cap analysis to the specific scenario that matters most right now. The connection to today's ISG piece is direct: a vendor who fails to detect and report a qualifying cyber incident may have simultaneously triggered the Art. 74a notification duty and stepped into gross negligence territory under the same facts that activate your limitation clause defence. The contracts team and the compliance team need to be in the same room when reviewing that clause — not sequentially.

The WBF amended Annex 8 of the Russia measures ordinance (SR 946.231.176.72) on June 16. If your screening provider's daily release note hasn't confirmed the update, that is the first task of the morning. This is the same ordinance that anchored the 20th package MAC-clause analysis in May. The June 16 amendment appears to be a targeted list change rather than a full package-level update — verify the delta report before closing the screening ticket.

Sudan Annex 2 was updated June 5; the Taliban list in May; ISIL/Al-Qaida and Iran Annexes 12 and 14 in April. Together with yesterday's Russia update, that is five amendments across four ordinances since mid-April. The ISIL list runs on the UN 1267 track — its amendment cadence is set in New York, not Bern. Sudan carries a documented twenty-day implementation lag against the EU listing date. If your screening workflow treats all four ordinances on the same trigger, it is treating different latency profiles identically, and one of them will eventually slip through the gap.

The comment window closed eight days ago. The three burden-shifting clauses that compliance and legal teams needed to flag before the deadline have been flagged. The next signal will be in the revised draft text: the delta between the consultation version and the final ordinance is where FINMA's negotiating floor becomes visible. Start estimating the retraining timeline now, before the draft confirms the scope.

Hunton Andrews Kurth joins a list that has grown steadily since 2022. For Swiss in-house counsel with China-nexus transactions, this matters less as a headline than as a panel audit trigger: the number of international firms that maintain meaningful PRC-law capability alongside Swiss and European expertise is narrowing, the advice chain on cross-border deals gets longer, and the handoff risk grows. An annual review of your China-adjacent external counsel arrangements — separate from the rate review — is worth scheduling.

Reed Smith's Riyadh opening, read alongside Law.com's Gulf reality check — red tape, talent wars, expensive offices — tells a consistent story: the firms going in are betting on Vision 2030 project finance and international arbitration at a scale that doesn't exist elsewhere. Whether the talent pool that staffed PRC desks is following the geography is still being answered — but the strategic direction is consistent. Swiss counsel with sovereign, infrastructure, or energy mandates should map their advisers' Gulf footprints now — the counterparties on the other side of those deals already have.

The EU Entry/Exit System (EES) — biometric capture of facial images and fingerprints, entry/exit logging, and overstay flagging — reached full deployment at all Schengen external border crossing points in April 2026 and is running in production, not in pilot. The automated risk-scoring layer (ETIAS) is not yet operational; it is expected to launch Q4 2026. We covered in May how the Annex III high-risk AI obligations were delayed to 2027. That delay applies to the audit and conformity-assessment framework. It does not suspend the deployment. Swiss vendors supplying EU border-adjacent operations should not read the 2027 date as a preparation window — EES is live now, and the documentation requirements will arrive while systems are already running. The conformity assessment process takes time; start it before the regulation forces it.

Geneva ruled against Uber Eats on rider classification — the second major Romandie judgment since the Bundesgericht's Chaskis decision (2C_46/2024, February 2025). We mapped the spread in May: cantonal courts in Romandie were applying the logic, and Geneva had cases in the pipeline. The Geneva ruling is cantonal, not federal, but it builds the factual record that future appellate panels will cite and that SUVA and cantonal labour authorities will read. If you operate a gig-economy or delivery platform with any Romandie footprint, the question is no longer whether you have employment-law risk — it is how large, and whether your insurance and indemnification structure was written for the labour law your platform is now operating under.