Force majeure, sub-contractors, termination: the gaps APRA reaffirmed on 30 April

Issue 3 | 20 May 2026

On 30 April 2026, APRA finalised targeted amendments to CPS 230, CPG 230, and the MSP Register Template. The amendments commence 1 July 2026 and introduce a limited exemption from specified contract clauses for material arrangements with seven categories of non-traditional service providers: government agencies, regulators, central banks, financial market exchanges, clearing and settlement facility operators, payment system and scheme operators, and financial messaging infrastructures. The exemption applies only where the contract is standardised or non-negotiable. All other CPS 230 obligations continue to apply. Paragraph numbering shifts under the amendments: force majeure moves from 54(f) to 53(f), and the notifications requirement for material service agreements moves from 59(a) to 60(a). The MSP Register Template now accommodates exempt classifications.

For weekly intelligence on what APRA looks at when reviewing CPS 230 contract uplift programs, built for institutions and service providers preparing for 1 July 2026, subscribe to The Inside Brief at theinsidebrief.com.

With 6 weeks to the 1 July 2026 deadline, the requirement to maintain CPS 230-compliant contracts is well documented. The clauses themselves are not the difficulty. The difficulty is the gap between what a clause technically includes and what APRA will accept as evidence the clause means something in practice.

Three patterns are consistent across publicly available legal commentary and APRA's 30 April 2026 letter.

First, force majeure clauses that list triggering events but stay silent on which obligations survive. Paragraph 54(f), renumbered to 53(f) under the 1 July 2026 amendments, requires the agreement to specify which parts of the contract continue during a force majeure event. APRA addressed industry pushback on this clause in its 30 April 2026 letter and declined to soften it. The standard asks for contractual clarity, not a guarantee of uninterrupted performance. A boilerplate force majeure clause that does not specify which obligations continue does not satisfy the standard.

Second, sub-contractor clauses with notification but no liability flow-through, or liability without notification. Paragraph 54(d) requires notification when the service provider uses other material service providers it materially relies on. Paragraph 54(e) requires liability for sub-contractor failure to remain with the service provider. The two requirements are separate. Contracts often address one and not the other. Regulated entities are increasingly treating partial coverage as non-compliance, because the prudential rationale only holds when both obligations sit together.

Third, termination clauses that allow termination in entirety but not in part. Paragraph 54(g) requires the right to terminate the arrangement in whole or in parts. Standard SaaS and outsourcing terms often miss the partial right. For super fund licensees, termination must also be available where continuing the arrangement would be inconsistent with the duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries.

Across all three, the substantive question is the same. The clauses on the page are necessary but not sufficient. The 30 April 2026 amendments added a narrow exemption for seven categories of non-traditional service providers operating on standardised terms, and renumbered the obligations. They did not relax the substantive obligations on contracts outside those seven categories.

Implications cut both ways. Regulated entities still carrying any of these gaps are exposed at the 1 July transition. Service providers on legacy terms are about to receive a wave of clause-by-clause uplift requests, and the ones with a tabled response will close those negotiations faster.

Pull your top 10 material service provider contracts. Check each force majeure clause for a specific list of obligations that continue, not just triggering events. After coordinating with your compliance and procurement teams, flag any contract missing this language for renegotiation before 1 July 2026. Do not assume legal has caught it.

A "CPS 230 ready" claim from a service provider that cannot show a clause-by-clause map of their standard contract against paragraph 54 (a) to (g). Marketing readiness is not contractual readiness, and regulated customers in the next 6 weeks will treat the absence of a mapped response as the answer itself.

My view: There are two CPS 230 markets on 1 July. The seven exempt categories, who got real relief. And everyone else, where the programs declared done are mostly theatre. The amendments narrowed the problem to where it was solvable. They did not fix the problem for everyone else.