The requested URL was not found on this server
The IBJJF 2021 Pan No-Gi Championships is underway
The black belt divisions begin at 10:30 a.m
We'll be updating the biggest news and most important results
and linking to the most exciting matches on this page all day
Keep this page refreshed throughout the day to remain up to date
and Mike Perez defeated Antonio Zuazo on points
The Atos teammates closed out the open weight division
Lucas Barbosa defeated Joe Dierkishing 3-0 in the quarterfinal
He will face Giancarlo Bodoni in the semifinal
This will be a rematch from the heavyweight final
and will face Antonio Zuazo in the semifinal
Elisabeth Clay hit her sixth submission on the day to take the absolute title. She finished Kendall Reusing with an arm crush from guard. She completed the submission during the sweep to mount. Watch it here
Mike Perez will face Pedro Monteiro Palhares in the quarterfinals. He finished Daniel Aquino with a guillotine to get there. (Watch here)
Antonio Zuazo has made it to the semifinals
Giancarlo Bodoni attacked a heel hook to earned a last minute advantage in his absolute quarterfinal against Bruno Matias. Bodoni is the first to make it to the male open weight semifinals. (Watch here)
Lucas Hulk Barbosa defeated Oliver Taza 11-0 in an absolute qualifier. (Watch Here)
Kendall Reusing defeated Mayara Monteiro in the women's absolute semifinal
Lis Clay is in the final of the women's absolute after another heel hook victory, her fifth leg lock victory of the day. Watch it here
Oliver Taza won a revenge victory in the open weight division over Rodrigo Gotari
Taza lost to Gotari via disqualification in the first black belt match of the day in the middleweight class
The black belt absolute divisions have begun
Vanessa Griffin earned a submission in the final minute of her middleweight final against Erin Johnson, winning her first Pan No-Gi title. Watch the final here
Estevan Martinez scored a heel hook late in his final against Roiter Lima, securing gold in the roosterweight division. Watch the match here
Victor Hugo rode a two penalty advantage over Tex Johnson to win the ultra heavyweight final
Devhonte Johnson defeated Arnaldo Maidana 4-0 in the super heavyweight final
Kendall Reusing defeated Mayara Monteiro via submission in the super heavyweight final. Watch the final here
Paulo Miyao defeated Bebeto Oliveira in the light featherweight final, winning his second No-Gi Pans title four days after his 30th birthday. Watch the final here
Giancarlo Bodoni earned redemption, defeating Lucas Hulk Barbosa via referee decision, and winning his first black belt No-Gi Pan title. Bodoni lost in the final to Hulk in 2020 No-Gi Pans final. Watch the full match here
Mayssa Bastos defeated Sofia Amarante in the light featherweight final. (Watch here)
Maria Malyjasiak submitted Maggie Grindatti with a kneebar in the women's heavyweight final. (Watch here)
Aaron Tex Johnson will face Victor Hugo in the ultra heavyweight final
Nathalie Ribeiro won the lightweight Pan No-Gi title
Bebeto Oliveira defeated Junny Ocasio in the light featherweight semifinal
Devhonte Johnson won a referee decision over Diego Ramalho
and will move to the super heavyweight final
where he'll face the winner of Arnaldo Maidana and Eliot Kelly
Paulo Miyao defeated Richard Alarcon in the light featherweight semifinal
He'll face the winner of Bebeto Oliveira vs Junny Ocasio
Mayssa Bastos submitted Jessa Khan in the final six seconds of the light featherweight semifinal. Jessa had an early lead, and had Bastos in submission trouble, but she couldn't sustain it. (Watch here)
Bastos will face Sofia Amarante in the final
Lucas Barbosa defeated Bruno Matias 12-0 in the heavyweight semifinals. (Watch here)
He will face Giancarlo Bodoni in the final
Lucas Barbosa will face Bruno Matias in the heavyweight semifinal
Giancarlo Bodoni will face Yuri Paiva in the semi on the other side of the bracket
In the upset of the day, Diego Pato Oliviera defeated Josh Cisneros in the featherweight final. Pato caught a kneebar from 50-50 inside of the first minute, earning his first No-Gi Pans title. Pato had a stellar day, winning three of his four matches via submission. Watch the final here
Jessa Khan submitted Lavinia Barbosa in the featherweight quarterfinals, and is slated to face Mayssa Bastos in the semis. (Watch here)
Josh Cisneros and Diego Oliviera will face off in the featherweight final
Each of them are two for three on submissions in their matches today
Lucas "Hulk" Barbosa will face Bruno Matias in the heavyweight semifinals. Barbosa finished an arm triangle in his opening match
Jeferson Guaresi defeated Jaime Canuto via decision
and Andrew Wiltse defeated John Combs by two advantages
They will face in the medium heavyweight final
Gianni Grippo won his third Pan No-Gi title, defeating Johnny Tama in the lightweight final in a 4-2 victory. Watch the final here
Matheus Gabriel wins his first major IBJJF no-gi title
John Combs and Valdir Araujo delivered the match of the day, a takedown battle that went down to the wire. Araujo scored a late takedown, but Combs stole the victory with a backtake in the closing minute. Combs will head to the medium heavyweight semifinals. (watch here)
Jeferson Guaresi defeated David Garmo on points, and will move on to face Jaime Canuto in the medium heavyweight semifinals
Andrew Wiltse won his opening match of the day via submission in the final minute of the match, securing a rear naked choke for the win. (Watch here)
Johnny Tama defeated Kieran Kichuk in the lightweight semifinal (watch here)
Hugo Marques finished Joshua Bacallao in the middleweight semifinal with a guillotine and will face Matheus Gabriel in the final. Watch the guillotine here
Valdir Araujo beat a medium heavyweight division favorite, Pedro Rocha in a match that went down to the wire
Rocha took Araujo's back with two seconds left
Gianni Grippo is in the lightweight final, and will face the winner of Johnny Tama and Kieran Kichuk. Matheus Gabriel earned a middleweight final berth after submitting Michael Trasso in the semis. (Watch here)
Kieran Kichuk secured his third submission of the day in the lightweight quarterfinal, winning via inside heel hook in 40 seconds. He'll face Johnny Tama in the lightweight semifinals. (Watch here)
John Combs won a 30-2 victory over the dangerous leglocker Stanley Rosa
but couldn't keep up with Combs' pace
The middleweight semifinals are set. Matheus Gabriel will face Michael Trasso and Hugo Marques will face Joshua Bacallao
Matheus Gabriel is in the midleweight semifinals after a victory over Felipe Cesar Silva
Johnny Tama is in the lightweight semis after a win over Charles Murdock
Joshua Cisneros hit an explosive triangle in his opening match at featherweight. (Watch here)
David Garmo won his opening round at medium heavyweight with an armbar. (Watch here)
Kieran Kichuk scored another submission in the lightweight division, this time a heel hook over Paulo Gabriel Martins to move into the quarterfinals. (Watch here)
Hugo Marques is in the middleweight quarterfinals after an impressive triangle victory in his opening match. (Watch here)
Johnny Tama is in the lightweight quarterfinal after a quick submission win over Hidar Abbas. (Watch here)
Middleweight update: Matheus Gabriel moved ahead after a 2-0 victory over Enrique Galarza. PJ Barch lost a 2-0 match to Joshua Bacallao
Kieran Kichuk scored a first round guillotine in the lightweight division. (Watch here)
Featherweight world champion Matheus Gabriel won his first round match in the middleweight division over Leonardo Guimares. He'll face Enrique Galarza next. (Watch here)
PJ Barch won by submission in his opening round match against Eduardo Avelar. He scored an early takedown, then established back control and took the rear naked choke victory. (Watch here)
Oliver Taza was disqualified in his opening round match against Rodrigo Gortari. Taza was down 2-0, but had gotten to Gortari's back. He was disqualified for puting his hands to Gortari's face, attempting a to restrict his breathing. (Watch here)
Get the most important Jiu-Jitsu stories delivered straight to your inbox
Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker
Already a member? Log in here
IFLR is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025
Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
The misalignment of the SFDR and the Taxonomy Regulation with the scope of the NFRD in what concerns reporting requirements and data;
The lack of uniformity and specificity on disclosure obligations
which therefore imperils the goal of having greater transparency and standardisation of non-financial disclosure;
The reporting thresholds that create discrepancies between types of asset managers (big versus large
Implementation timelines: interacting with all the applicable legislation can be problematic as the application deadlines are not fully aligned and are constantly changing
the European Commission has postponed the SFDR level 2 implementation twice
Accrued costs with regulatory compliance: the possibility of having to comply with these legal instruments simultaneously may lead fund managers to disclose the same information in several ways
duplicating work and resources and increasing compliance costs and time spent
The publication of the Taxonomy Regulation RTS and the SFDR RTS
with their reporting differences and details in disclosure obligations
exemplifies the difficulty and work burden that fund managers will soon face
Greenwashing: for all that remains to be defined and clarified by the European regulator
in the short term the risk of greenwashing is real and could trigger an adverse selection problem if investors are not able to distinguish which fund managers are reliably promoting sustainable investments and those which are not
This risk has been mitigated in some ways by the publication of the mentioned RTS and the CSRD proposal
reliance on information collected or analysed by portfolio companies could be a serious risk for fund managers
and this should be addressed by direct shareholder engagement with management (in the case of mutual funds) or in the relevant investment documentation (in the case of alternative funds)
Cross-border investment decisions: due to the lack of coherent international standards and metrics in ESG reporting and transparency
fund managers who invest outside the EU may also be subject to conflicting ESG taxonomies and different frameworks and definitions
This amplifies the regulatory complexity of ESG compliance
E: drd@mlgts.pt
E: pcbarbosa@mlgts.pt
E: smatias@mlgts.pt
You have reached the limit for gifting for this month
the European Commission (EC) released a new package of measures aiming to expand on and enhance the EU sustainable finance framework
promoting additional financial flows into sustainable initiatives
The EC’s updates address the existing framework’s inconsistencies
coherence and alignment while decreasing firms’ administrative burden
An “environmental delegated act” that includes the technical screening requirements for the outstanding four EU Taxonomy Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852) environmental objectives;
Amendments to the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act
providing technical screening criteria that include more economic activities for the EU Taxonomy Regulation's climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives;
An EC proposal for a regulation on ESG rating activities
which aims to increase transparency and confidence in ESG rating providers while enhancing the accuracy and reliability of ESG data and market integrity
The proposal includes organisational principles and clear guidelines for avoiding conflicts of interest
an authorisation criteria for EU-established ESG rating providers
and an equivalence decision and process for non-EU ESG rating providers; and
published in the Official Journal of the European Union on June 16 2023 (FAQ)
which clarifies some of the interpretative questions on the application of the EU Taxonomy Regulation
It also clarifies the status of investments in taxonomy-aligned economic activities and assets under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) (Regulation (EU) 2019/2088)
The user-friendly and long-awaited clarifications on the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions of the EU Taxonomy Regulation and its link to the SFDR are particularly interesting and the main subject of this article
The Taxonomy Regulation entered into force on July 12 2020 and introduced the taxonomy - at the EU level - of environmentally sustainable activities
This established a classification system to facilitate the identification of investments that could be considered sustainable from an environmental perspective
This important and complex piece of legislation:
Established the sustainability objectives and conditions that a company must comply with to be considered environmentally sustainable;
Imposed new disclosure obligations regarding environmentally sustainable economic activities; and
a regulation that defines reporting obligations for financial market participants
Even though the SFDR and the EU Taxonomy Regulation are inextricably linked (they cross-reference and share common principles and objectives)
there are various inconsistencies and contradictions in the regulations
Many of these inconsistencies are conceptual
and this creates interpretation difficulties and makes the compatibility between the two legal instruments problematic
posing challenges to financial market participants
while the EU Taxonomy Regulation only refers to environmentally sustainable investments
the definition of sustainable investment is broader
the concepts of minimum safeguards and good governance in the definition of sustainable investment and the ‘do no significant harm’ test for Article 8 and 9 funds overlap
While there is still room for greater harmony
the FAQ clarifies two openly debated questions and helps the understanding of the legal instruments’ relationship and what they entail in practice
The EU Taxonomy Regulation establishes that an economic activity can only be considered environmentally sustainable (and the investment qualified as EU Taxonomy aligned) if
in addition to meeting the other three requirements of Article 3 ((i) contributes substantially to one or more of the environmental objectives of the regulation
(ii) does not significantly harm any of the environmental objectives set out in the regulation; and (iii) complies with technical screening criteria that have been established by the EC)
it is carried out in compliance with the minimum safeguards set out in Article 18
that entities carrying out such activities comply with certain fundamental social
human rights and labour principles and minimum governance standards
The relevant operators assess the compliance of their activities with the specific requirements for minimum safeguards set out in Article 18
International standards of responsible business conduct (OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
including the principles and rights set out in the fundamental conventions identified in the Declaration of the International Labour Organization on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and in the International Bill of Human Rights)
which define these minimum safeguards; and
The principle of ‘do no significant harm’ referred to in Article 2(17) of the SFDR and specified in the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1288 (Delegated Regulation)
which ensures that undertakings making sustainable investments do not significantly harm environmental or social objectives
in addition to the mandatory disclosure of the alignment of sustainable investment with international standards
several indicators of key negative impacts should be considered
Regarding the first requirement for compliance with the minimum safeguards (international standards)
the FAQ clarifies that the procedures to be applied to ensure alignment with international standards include good corporate governance practices (i.e
responsible business conduct and responsible supply chain management) described therein
These include due diligence and remedy procedures that are considered appropriate to identify
mitigate or remediate the relevant actual and potential adverse impact connected with the undertaking and procedures that prevent human rights violations
On the second requirement for compliance with the minimum safeguards (principle of ‘do no significant harm’)
as part of the due diligence and remedy procedures
the SFDR’s principal adverse impact indicators for social and employee matters
sale or manufacture of controversial weapons
currently listed in Table 1 of Annex I of the Delegated Regulation should be addressed
mitigate or remedy relevant actual and potential adverse impacts related to undertakings’ operations
regardless of how environmentally "green" an activity is
it will not be considered environmentally sustainable if the relevant undertaking has not adopted adequate measures to reduce human rights concerns in accordance with international standards
the EC explains that an undertaking may be complying with the minimum safeguards even if it proves unable to address or eliminate certain adverse impacts
What will be relevant is the application of the appropriate procedures
and the explanation of the reasonable due diligence and mitigation measures adopted
By following the European Commission’s Platform on Sustainable Finance’s recommendations and best practices published last October
the EC’s further guidance provides a new understanding of how the EU Taxonomy Regulation minimum safeguards test (which guarantees that environmentally sustainable activities adhere to social standards and guidelines) interacts with the SFDR’s principle of ‘do no significant harm’ used in the assessment of sustainable investments
this aligns with the SFDR’s disclosures with such a test of the Taxonomy Regulation
the mandatory reporting of information corresponding to the indicators of key negative impacts required by the Delegated Regulation when complying with the disclosure obligations of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (Regulation (EU) 2022/2464)
will help companies assess compliance with the requirements of Article 18 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation
This will help investors get the necessary information from the former
under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
companies must have in place human rights and environmental due diligence procedures
also ensuring alignment with the EU Taxonomy Regulation’s minimum safeguards
The EC clarifies that investments in economic activities that are environmentally sustainable and aligned with the Taxonomy are automatically considered sustainable investments under the SFDR
This is because the criteria for fulfilling that concept (the ‘do no significant harm’ principle
the contribution to a sustainable objective and the requirement to ensure that an investee company follows good governance practices according to point 17 of Article 2 of the SFDR) are deemed to be met by compliance with the requirements set out in the aforementioned Article 18 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation
investments in Taxonomy-aligned ‘environmentally sustainable’ economic activities have to be considered when completing the product level disclosure requirements under the SFDR
when the activity alignment with the EU Taxonomy is not fully verified
it will still be necessary to check whether the remaining economic activities of the undertaking comply with the environmental elements of the SFDR principle of ‘do no significant harm’
It is likewise necessary to determine whether the contribution to the environmental objective is deemed sufficient for the investment in that undertaking to be considered sustainable under the SFDR
the FAQ complements the April 2023 Q&A relating to the EC’s statement that Article 9(3) of the SFDR applies to funds that passively monitor an EU climate benchmark and are regarded as having sustainable investments as an investment objective
the FAQ confirms that when a fund’s investments fully align with the EU Taxonomy
provided the minimum safeguards test is applied
it is unnecessary to comply with Article 2(17) of the SFDR “sustainable investments” test
which disregards the SFDR’s ‘do no significant harm’ assessment
the interplay between the two legislative instruments shows that the mandatory principal adverse impact indicators may not be considered
but Article 8 and Article 9 funds that are taxonomy-aligned must still provide information on the minimum safeguards alignment of their portfolio companies
This Taxonomy “safe harbour” (to disapply principal adverse impact indicators) appears to come from a European Supervisory Authorities’ (ESAs) suggestion published on April 12 2023
It proposes amendments to the SFDR Delegated Act’s consultation
and the creation of an optional "safe-harbour for environmental do no significant harm’
“environmentally sustainable” investments under the EU Taxonomy would not be required to meet the SFDR’s ‘do no significant harm’ test
That was not the first time the ESAs have argued on how the ‘do no significant harm’ test for sustainable investment should be connected to the ‘do no significant harm’ test under the EU Taxonomy Regulation
the supervisory authorities suggested in their March 2021 joint consultation paper on Taxonomy-related sustainability disclosures that the Taxonomy’ test should replace the SFDR’ test
such that investments in Taxonomy-aligned activities would thus be considered sustainable investments under the SFDR
This latter suggestion was later updated for the correlation between the tests to become conditional to respecting the ‘do no significant harm’ principle
While the EC now clarifies that this safe harbour is already in place
the following question has been left unexplained
What was the rationale employed if the assessment of the EU Taxonomy “environmentally sustainable” test is at an economic activity level while the SFDR “sustainable investment” test is conducted at an entity/investment level
the clarification of the EU Taxonomy Regulation’s link to the SFDR shows that the first regulation is used beyond the “sustainable finance” regulatory framework
This means it should be seen as a foundation for environmental sustainability and the promotion of the use of proceeds
while acting as a guideline for SFDR product disclosures and fund classification with correspondent changes in pre-contractual and website disclosures
asset managers no longer have to use EU Taxonomy criteria to evaluate the alignment of their sustainable investments
expectations are high as to whether these clarifications may result in more funds pledging to make 'sustainable investments' under the SFDR or even to disclose under Article 9 of the SFDR
it will certainly be hampered by the FAQ’s timing
as many funds have already classified their funds and made their pre-contractual and website disclosures available
while there is still room to enhance the overall coherence and effectiveness of the EU sustainable finance framework
as well as to improve regulatory consistency and simplification
the FAQ is an important piece of the regulatory puzzle
The EC made it clear that the framework is to be constantly updated and that the EU’s sustainable finance programme is not slowing down
While waiting for further clarification and harmonisation between the SFDR and the EU Taxonomy Regulation
companies and asset managers seeking to position themselves for the next framework changes should concentrate on the Commission’s consultation on reviewing the SFDR
Available on
Bollywood News | Current Bollywood News | Indian News | India Cricket Score | Business News India