Twelve client retainers, two analysts, one Monday morning

The revised Regulation is at informal trilogue stage. The core political battle is over data exclusivity — the Commission's original proposal reduced standard market exclusivity from 8 years to 6, with extensions available for unmet medical needs, new indications, and launch in all EU markets. The pharma industry, led by EFPIA, has lobbied hard against the baseline reduction; MEP support for restoring the 8-year baseline is substantial in the EPP and parts of Renew. The Council position is closer to the Commission on this. The parallel fight is on the Bolar exemption and its scope for generics manufacturers — that's less visible politically but commercially significant. Where are your client's products positioned in the exclusivity cycle? That shapes what outcome they should actually be hoping for.

The FCA published a portfolio letter targeting retail banking in March — their findings were that firms are meeting the letter of Consumer Duty but board-level oversight and outcome monitoring MI is weak. They specifically flagged that boards aren't challenging management on consumer outcome data. Expect a follow-up supervisory exercise targeting those weaknesses in H2 2025. For your fintech client, the relevant question is whether they're in the FCA's retail banking portfolio or another segment — the supervisory intensity varies significantly. If they haven't done a board-level Consumer Duty outcomes review in the last 6 months, that's the gap to fix before the FCA comes calling.

The mandatory targets survived at Committee Stage — the government held the line against the most significant amendments, including attempts to reintroduce local authority veto powers for green belt land. However, there's a concession: the government accepted an amendment requiring planning inspectors to give greater weight to local development plans where they're up to date. That's a softening on the margins. The bigger risk for your developer client now is the secondary legislation on Infrastructure Levy — the replacement for section 106 is still being designed and the consultation hasn't dropped yet. That's where the financial viability of mixed-tenure schemes will be determined. Worth flagging that the Infrastructure Levy SI is the one to watch, not the primary legislation.