CSSF White-Label Business Notification: What the New Form Asks

On 8 October 2026 the CSSF published the form behind a new filing, the CSSF white-label business notification. It applies to a Luxembourg investment fund manager (IFM) that manages, or intends to manage, a fund at the initiative of a third party, and it gives working shape to Article 13(2a) of the Law of 12 July 2013 on alternative investment fund managers (the Law of 2013) and Article 111(2) of the Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment (the Law of 2010). Both paragraphs arrived with the Law of 3 March 2026, which transposed Directive (EU) 2024/927 into Luxembourg law. The CSSF’s instruction is brief: an IFM taking up this activity for the first time fills in and submits the form.

The legal duty fits in one sentence. Taking account of any conflicts of interest, the IFM submits detailed explanations and evidence that it complies with the conflicts rules, and it specifies the reasonable steps it has taken to prevent conflicts arising from the relationship with the third party or, where they cannot be prevented, how it identifies, manages, monitors and, where applicable, discloses them. The CSSF has turned that sentence into a three-sheet Excel workbook: identification with a declaration by the person submitting, a questionnaire on business model, fees and conflicts, and an assets-under-management appendix for IFMs that take over existing assets.

What the communication leaves unsaid matters as much as the fields. It sets no filing deadline, names no submission channel, describes no approval step and does not address IFMs that already managed third-party-initiated funds before 8 October 2026.

Related reading: AIFMD II Passport Notifications: New CSSF Templates From 31 July

The dates around the white-label notification

• 13 March 2024: Directive (EU) 2024/927 adopted, amending the AIFMD (Directive 2011/61/EU) and the UCITS Directive (Directive 2009/65/EC); published in the Official Journal on 26 March 2024.
• 3 March 2026: date of the Luxembourg law transposing Directive (EU) 2024/927 by amending the Law of 2010 and the Law of 2013.
• 16 April 2026: the Luxembourg amendments, including Article 13(2a) and Article 111(2), apply. The bill text reported by the Chamber of Deputies’ Finance Committee sets this date for the whole law except the new UCITS and AIFM reporting provisions (its Article 16 and Article 42, points 1 and 2), in line with Article 3(1) of the Directive.
• 8 October 2026: the CSSF publishes its communication and version 1.0 of the form, file name White-label-business-notification.xlsx.
• 16 April 2027: the deferred supervisory-reporting measures apply, including the new delegation data in AIFMD Article 24(2)(d) and the UCITS reporting regime in the new Article 20a of the UCITS Directive. ESMA’s final report of 4 May 2026 expects the new reporting to go live in H1 2029 at the earliest.
• By 16 April 2029: ESMA reports on delegation practices and the Commission initiates reviews that expressly include the third-party initiator rules (AIFMD Article 69a(1)(e); UCITS Directive Article 110a(c)).

The form has its own trigger, the IFM’s intention to take up white-label business, and the communication attaches no lead time to it. The dates above frame the regime around that trigger.

Legal basis: Article 13(2a) and Article 111(2) side by side

Directive (EU) 2024/927 inserted a paragraph 2a into Article 14 of the AIFMD (by its Article 1(6)) and a matching paragraph 2a into Article 14 of the UCITS Directive (by its Article 2(5)(a)). The trigger in both is a manager that manages or intends to manage a fund at the initiative of a third party, and the text spells out two included cases: the fund uses the name of a third-party initiator, or the manager appoints a third-party initiator as a delegate. Luxembourg carried the wording into its two fund-manager statutes. The bill text reported by the Finance Committee on 30 January 2026 numbers the AIFM provision as paragraph 2bis of Article 13 of the Law of 2013; the CSSF’s English publications call it Article 13(2a). On the UCITS side, the former single paragraph of Article 111 became paragraph 1 and the new text became paragraph 2.

The two sides look symmetrical until the compliance reference. On the AIF side the IFM evidences compliance with Article 13(1) and (2) of the Law of 2013, which carry AIFMD Article 14(1) and (2). Those paragraphs require all reasonable steps to identify conflicts across five relationships: the AIFM and its people against the AIF or its investors, one AIF against another, an AIF against another client, an AIF against a UCITS the AIFM manages, and one client against another. They also require organisational arrangements to identify, prevent, manage and monitor conflicts, segregation of incompatible tasks, and, where those arrangements cannot ensure with reasonable confidence that investor damage is prevented, disclosure of the general nature or sources of the conflicts to investors before business is undertaken on their behalf.

The UCITS reference is narrower. Article 111(1)(d) of the Law of 2010 carries the UCITS Directive principle in Article 14(1)(d): the management company tries to avoid conflicts of interest and, when they cannot be avoided, ensures that the UCITS it manages are fairly treated.

The form follows that split. Confirmation 2.1.2, the five-relationship statement, is framed “in relation to the AIF business, if applicable”. The reference to AIF business suggests that confirmation 2.1.2 may not apply to a Chapter 15 management company without AIF mandates. However, the IFM should verify the workbook’s response instructions and document the basis for any not-applicable answer.

Who files the CSSF white-label business notification

The CSSF tags the form as relevant for alternative investment fund managers and for Chapter 15 management companies. On the AIF side the duty sits in Article 13 of the Law of 2013, which does not reach registered AIFMs below the Article 3(2) thresholds unless they opt in (see the FAQ below). Inside those populations, the operative test is initiative: the duty attaches where the IFM manages or intends to manage a fund at the initiative of a third party.

The fund name is one included case, which makes the test wider than branding. A fund launched at a partner’s initiative under the IFM’s own naming convention still sits inside the wording; a fund carrying a partner’s brand is simply the most visible example. The delegation limb works the same way. Appointing the initiator as a delegate is named as an included case, while an ordinary delegation to a portfolio manager the IFM selected itself, with no third-party initiative behind the fund, falls outside the trigger as I read the text.

On my reading of the workbook, fund domicile does not narrow the population either. The Appendix 1 tables split assets under management into Luxembourg funds authorised by the CSSF (UCITS, AIF, non-AIF), funds not authorised by the CSSF (non-Luxembourg UCITS, RAIF, Luxembourg AIF not authorised by the CSSF, non-Luxembourg AIF) and an “Other” column. The CSSF is asking for an IFM-level view that includes funds outside its own product authorisation.

The first-time question is where the scope gets uncomfortable. The communication addresses “any IFM wishing to undertake this activity for the first time”. The statute covers an IFM that “manages or intends to manage”. An IFM already running third-party-initiated funds on 16 April 2026 therefore fits the statutory wording without fitting the communication’s first-time framing, and the communication does not say whether, or when, the CSSF expects those IFMs to complete the form. That question belongs in writing with the IFM’s CSSF contact.

Inside the form, sheet by sheet

Each sheet carries the version stamp “v 1.0” dated 10/2026, and the workbook holds the internal reference WLBN_26_I. Its three tabs are “1. General information”, “2. IFM information” and “3. Appendix 1”.

Sheet 1: identity and a declaration

The first sheet restates the legal basis and the first-time instruction, then asks for the requesting IFM (an “IFM NoSIG” field and the IFM name) and a contact block: company, name of declarant, position of declarant and submission date in DD/MM/YYYY format. It closes with a declaration. The person submitting confirms being duly empowered to submit the information in the name and on behalf of the IFM, and that the information submitted is true, accurate and complete.

The contact block has its own company field, separate from the IFM name. The declaration, though, ties whoever submits to the IFM’s authority and to the accuracy of every answer behind it.

Section 1: business model, set-up and fee flows

Question 1.1 asks for the business model for white-label activity: the types of business partners or initiators involved and their objectives, the types of funds, and growth targets for the activity. Question 1.2 asks for the foreseen set-up, including the organisational model, the governance arrangements and the specific monitoring at IFM level that ensures compliance with Article 111(1)(d) of the Law of 2010 and Article 13(1) and (2) of the Law of 2013. Question 1.4 sends IFMs that take over existing assets to Appendix 1.

Question 1.3 reaches furthest into the commercial arrangements. It asks for the fee arrangements applicable to these funds, including the portion of fees transferred to the stakeholders (it names the investment manager, the investment adviser, the initiator and other distributors), and whether each payment is made by the IFM or by the fund. A fee leg the IFM pays and a fee charged directly to the fund are both in scope, so a fund-level fee table alone does not answer the question. For AIFs, this mapping overlaps with the investor disclosure that Directive (EU) 2024/927 added to Article 23(1) of the AIFMD as point (ia): a list of fees, charges and expenses borne by the AIFM in connection with the operation of the AIF and allocated to it.

Section 2: three confirmations and a request for disclosure examples

Section 2 opens with three statements the IFM is asked to confirm:

• 2.1.1: the conflicts of interest policy covers the identification, management and disclosure of conflicts related to white-label business, and any such conflicts are recorded in the conflicts of interest register.
• 2.1.2: for AIF business, if applicable, all reasonable steps have been taken to identify conflicts across the five AIFMD relationships listed above, and those conflicts are recorded in the register.
• 2.1.3: when conflicts cannot be prevented or managed, they are disclosed to investors before business is undertaken on their behalf, and appropriate policies and procedures are developed.

Question 2.2 then asks for examples of disclosure showing how the IFM complies with Article 111(2) and/or Article 13(2a). The workbook does not specify the medium. Offering-document wording is the obvious candidate on my reading.

Disclosure sits at the end of the chain. In AIFMD Article 14(2) the disclosure duty bites where the organisational arrangements are insufficient to ensure, with reasonable confidence, that risks of damage to investors will be prevented, and the inserted paragraph 2a asks first for the reasonable steps taken to prevent conflicts arising from the third-party relationship. A disclosure example in 2.2 shows the fallback working; the prevention evidence the statute names first still has to come through sections 1 and 3.

Section 3: five conflict situations the CSSF names

Section 3 is the core of the CSSF white-label business notification. For each situation the CSSF describes the risk in its own words and asks for detailed explanations of how the related conflicts are identified, managed and, where relevant, disclosed.

An IFM that keeps portfolio management in-house might read item 3.3 as not applicable to it. The CSSF lists the situation in its own right: keeping the function in-house moves the initiator’s influence onto the IFM’s own investment desk, where the risk the CSSF describes is a portfolio manager following the initiator’s guidance formally or informally. The evidence here is about decision records and the portfolio manager’s independence from the commercial relationship.

Item 3.4 lands on the same ground as the CSSF’s valuation work. Our coverage of the CSSF illiquid asset valuation thematic review sets out the policy, model and third-party gaps the CSSF found in IFM valuation processes, and an initiator with a commercial interest in reported performance is one more pressure point on that process.

Item 3.5 lists five overlaps explicitly: a representative of the business partner or initiator sits on the board of the IFM or the funds; members of the initiator take part in investment committees, valuation committees or other decision-making bodies of the IFM and may influence decisions about their own activities or interests; an initiator representative takes part in selecting, appointing, monitoring or replacing delegates or service providers affiliated with the initiator; a person linked to the initiator is involved in risk management, compliance or internal audit, or in their oversight; and a member of the IFM serves on the board of a fund for which the initiator appointed the IFM as management company or AIFM. The control-function bullet sits close to the questions in ESMA’s coordinated review of fund managers’ risk functions, covered in our note on the ESMA risk management function CSA.

Appendix 1: assets under management for asset takeovers

Appendix 1 applies where the IFM takes over existing assets, per question 1.4. It holds four tables, each in EUR with a date field and the same column set described above:

• Table 1: total AuM per UCI category attributable exclusively to white-label or third-party-initiated structures, stated as of year-end (31 December).
• Table 2: of those UCIs, aggregated AuM of UCIs operating under the name, brand or commercial designation of the third-party sponsor or initiator.
• Table 3: of those UCIs, aggregated AuM where the sponsor or initiator is appointed as delegate of the portfolio management function.
• Table 4: of those UCIs, aggregated AuM where the sponsor or initiator is appointed as investment adviser.

Two features need care. Tables 2 to 4 are drawn from the population in Table 1, and nothing in the workbook makes them mutually exclusive, so a fund that carries the initiator’s name and uses the initiator as delegate portfolio manager appears in both Table 2 and Table 3 on my reading. And the date instructions in the workbook point in different directions: the appendix instruction asks for the most recent AuM figure available with its reference date, Table 1 specifies year-end, and each table has its own “As of” field. The applicable AuM reference date should be determined from the instructions and date fields in the published workbook. Where those instructions appear inconsistent, the IFM should seek clarification from the CSSF before deciding which reference date to use, and record the basis it used.

From explanation to evidence: assembling the file

The statutory verb pair is “explanations and evidence”, and the CSSF reserves the right to request additional information about the initial notification at any time. Most of the workbook is free text. In my view the quality of the submission depends on whether each narrative answer points to a document the IFM can produce on request.

Neither the communication nor the form page sets out an evidence checklist for this form. The mapping below is my own working version, built from what each question asks:

• Questions 1.1 and 1.2: the board-approved description of the white-label line, the organisational chart for the activity, and the terms of reference of any committee that monitors it.
• Question 1.3: the agreements that set each fee leg (investment management, advisory, initiator and distribution) and a reconciliation showing which legs the fund pays and which the IFM pays.
• Section 2: the current version of the conflicts policy and the register entries for each initiator relationship, dated before the form is submitted.
• Section 3: board and committee composition, delegation and advisory agreements, the valuation policy, and minutes that show challenge of initiator input.

Delegation oversight is already on the CSSF’s list. Its 2026 supervisory priorities for the investment fund sector, published on 31 March 2026, announce, under governance and operational risks, a 2026 study among a sample of IFMs to assess their compliance with, among other things, the principles related to delegation outlined in Circular CSSF 18/698. An IFM whose section 3 answers rely on oversight of an initiator acting as delegate will be describing arrangements that the circular also covers.

Open points in the 8 October communication

The communication runs to four short paragraphs and leaves several operational questions open:

• Timing. No deadline or lead time is stated. The form’s title refers to an IFM “intending to perform” white-label business, which on my reading points to submission before the activity starts.
• Channel. Neither the communication nor the workbook names a submission route, whether eDesk, email or another channel.
• Outcome. No approval, non-objection period or acknowledgement is described. The communication presents the form as information provided to the CSSF, with a reserved right to ask for more.
• Changes after filing. The CSSF calls the submission an initial notification and says nothing about updating it when the white-label business changes.
• Existing activity. The first-time question discussed above remains unanswered.

The CSSF’s 8 October 2026 communication does not expressly resolve these operational questions. IFMs should check for subsequent CSSF instructions and obtain clarification where necessary. Until further CSSF instructions are published, the written record of how an IFM resolved each point, and on whose advice, belongs in the evidence file.

Where the notification meets delegation, ancillary services and reporting

Where the initiator becomes a delegate, the IFM must assess the applicable delegation requirements separately from its white-label notification obligations. AIFMD Article 20 and UCITS Directive Article 13 govern delegation; as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/927, their first paragraphs require a manager that intends to delegate functions or services to notify its home competent authority before the delegation arrangements become effective. The precise notification requirements depend on the applicable regime and the arrangements concerned. The CSSF’s 8 October 2026 communication introduces a dedicated white-label form but does not expressly establish that every appointment of an initiator as delegate requires two separate notification submissions.

Services an IFM provides to third parties sit under another regime again. Our guide to the CSSF IFM ancillary services notification covers that filing, which turns on the IFM’s own service offering. The white-label trigger turns on who initiated the fund.

The same relationships reach periodic reporting under amended provisions that apply from 16 April 2027, although ESMA’s final report of 4 May 2026 on the integrated collection of funds’ data expects the new reporting to go live in H1 2029 at the earliest, with existing templates, on ESMA’s recommendation, continuing to apply until they are superseded. AIFMD Article 24(2)(d), as amended, adds delegation data covering the delegates, whether they have close links with the AIFM, the activities delegated, the amount and percentage of AIF assets under delegated portfolio management, the staff monitoring the arrangements, and the dates and findings of periodic due diligence reviews. Our overview of AIFMD II Annex IV reporting changes sets out that build.

An initiator acting as delegated portfolio manager may be relevant to both the white-label notification and the amended AIFMD delegation-reporting requirements. IFMs should maintain consistent underlying information across these obligations. The CSSF has not stated in its 8 October communication that it will systematically reconcile the two submissions.

The EU-level review comes last. By 16 April 2029 the Commission initiates reviews of both directives that include the appropriateness of the third-party initiator requirements, the need for additional safeguards to prevent their circumvention, and whether the conflicts-of-interest provisions are effective and appropriate for identifying, managing, monitoring and, where applicable, disclosing conflicts arising from the manager’s relationship with the initiator.

Frequently Asked Questions

The initiator is a company in the same group as the IFM. Does the white-label regime still apply?

Neither Article 13(2a), Article 111(2) nor the communication defines “third party” or exempts group entities. AIFMD Article 14(1)(a) already treats persons linked to the AIFM by control as a source of conflicts with the AIF, and the review clauses frame the concern as conflicts arising from the manager’s relationship with the initiator. I would not assume an intra-group carve-out without CSSF confirmation.

We hold both a Chapter 15 licence and an AIFM authorisation. Is it one form or two?

The workbook is designed to cover both. Its title refers to Article 13(2a) of the Law of 2013 “and/or” Article 111(2) of the Law of 2010, question 1.1 asks about white-label business under both articles, and the Appendix 1 columns hold UCITS and AIF figures side by side. One form covering both regimes fits that design, though the communication does not say so expressly.

The partner only distributes the fund. Is it an initiator?

Distribution and initiative are separate questions. Both directives, as amended, treat marketing by distributors acting on their own behalf under MiFID II, or through insurance-based investment products, as outside the delegation rules (AIFMD Article 20(6a); UCITS Directive Article 13(3)). That carve-out settles the delegation point only. If the distributor is the party at whose initiative the fund was set up, the wording of Article 13(2a) and Article 111(2) is met whatever its distribution role.

Can the initiator’s team prepare and submit the form on the IFM’s behalf?

The statute places the duty on the IFM. The declaration requires the person submitting to be duly empowered to act in the IFM’s name and to confirm the answers are true, accurate and complete. Section 3 asks how the IFM manages its conflicts with that same initiator, so an initiator-drafted answer would describe its own oversight; that is my view of the governance optics, not a stated CSSF rule.

Is there a size threshold below which the form is not needed?

Article 13(2a), Article 111(2) and the communication set no threshold of their own. On the AIF side, though, Article 3(2) of the Law of 2013 limits AIFMs whose AIF assets under management do not exceed EUR 100 million, or EUR 500 million where the AIFs are unleveraged and have no redemption rights for five years after initial investment, to the registration regime in Article 3(3) and (4). Those registered AIFMs fall under Article 13, including paragraph 2a, only if they opt in to the full law under Article 3(4). Article 111(2) has no equivalent threshold for Chapter 15 management companies. The only figures the workbook collects are the Appendix 1 AuM tables, and those apply where existing assets are taken over.

Related Articles

• AIFMD II Passport Notifications: New CSSF Templates From 31 July: the reissued CSSF management-notification templates that followed the same Law of 3 March 2026.
• CSSF IFM Ancillary Services Notification: What Luxembourg Fund Managers Must File Before Going Live: the separate notification for services an IFM provides to third parties and its conflict expectations.
• AIFMD II Annex IV Reporting Changes: What Luxembourg Fund Managers Must Prepare Before April 2027: the delegation, position and loan data that enter AIFM reporting.
• CSSF Illiquid Asset Valuation Review: What Luxembourg IFMs Must Address: the CSSF’s findings on IFM valuation policies, models and third-party inputs.
• ESMA Risk Management Function CSA: The 2026-2027 Supervisory Review: how national supervisors are testing the independence and staffing of UCITS and AIFM risk functions.
• CSSF Fund Notification Forms: Filing Under Circular 25/894: the CSSF notification forms IFMs use under Circular 25/894 for funds the CSSF does not authorise.

Key Takeaways

• Classify each fund by who initiated it; brand use and an initiator acting as delegate are included cases inside a wider initiative test.
• Record white-label conflicts in the register before confirming statements 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, since both state that this has already happened.
• Build the fee-flow map for question 1.3 at the level of each payer, IFM or fund, for every investment manager, adviser, initiator and distributor leg.
• Where assets are taken over, fix and document the AuM date basis for each Appendix 1 table before populating it.
• Assess the applicable delegation notification requirements separately and complete the CSSF white-label notification where the statutory and supervisory conditions are met.
• Put the open points on timing, channel and pre-existing activity to the CSSF in writing and keep the reply with the form.
• Diary 16 April 2027, when the amended delegation-reporting provisions apply, H1 2029 at the earliest for the go-live of the new reporting on ESMA’s May 2026 estimate, and 16 April 2029 for the EU reviews of the initiator rules.

Sources and References

• CSSF, Communication to the investment fund industry in relation to the information to be provided to the CSSF by a Luxembourg-based IFM intending to perform white-label business under Article 13(2a) of the Law of 2013 and/or Article 111(2) of the Law of 2010 (8 October 2026): CSSF communication
• CSSF, Information to be provided to the CSSF by a Luxembourg-based IFM intending to perform white-label business (form page, 8 October 2026): CSSF document page
• CSSF, White-Label Business Notification workbook, version 1.0 (10/2026): White-label-business-notification.xlsx
• Directive (EU) 2024/927 of 13 March 2024 amending Directives 2011/61/EU and 2009/65/EC (OJ L, 2024/927, 26.3.2024): EUR-Lex
• Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD): EUR-Lex
• Directive 2009/65/EC on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS Directive): EUR-Lex
• Law of 3 March 2026 amending the Law of 17 December 2010 and the Law of 12 July 2013 (transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/927): Legilux
• CSSF, Law of 12 July 2013 on alternative investment fund managers, consolidated English text including the amendments made by the Law of 3 March 2026 (drawn up for information; the texts published in the Journal officiel are authoritative), including Articles 3, 13 and 18: CSSF (PDF)
• CSSF, Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment, consolidated English text including the amendments made by the Law of 3 March 2026 (drawn up for information; the texts published in the Journal officiel are authoritative), including Articles 110 and 111: CSSF (PDF)
• Chamber of Deputies, Bill No 8628, Report of the Finance Committee (30 January 2026), including the text proposed for adoption: Doc. parl. 8628 (PDF)
• CSSF, supervisory priorities for 2026 in the investment fund sector (31 March 2026): CSSF
• Circular CSSF 18/698 on the authorisation and organisation of investment fund managers incorporated under Luxembourg law: CSSF
• CSSF, FAQ on the Luxembourg Law of 12 July 2013 on alternative investment fund managers, version 24 (20 May 2025), including the Registered AIFM regime under Article 3: CSSF FAQ (PDF)
• ESMA, Final Report on the integrated collection of funds’ data, ESMA12-2121844265-5150 (4 May 2026): ESMA (PDF)

Before the first third-party mandate goes live

The CSSF has published the questions; the answers depend on records an IFM either already holds or has to create. For each initiator relationship, that means a dated register entry, a fee-flow map by payer, the board and committee composition with any initiator-linked seats identified, and the agreements that define the initiator’s role as adviser, delegate or neither. With those in hand, version 1.0 of the white-label business notification can be completed and submitted before the first third-party-initiated fund is taken on, alongside a written query to the CSSF on the timing, channel and pre-existing-activity points the communication leaves open.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.