ESMA

ESMA Statements on ICO Risks for Firms and Investors

Posted on

 

Following the European Securities and Markets Authority‘s (“ESMA“) observation in rapid-growth initial coin offerings (“ICOs“)s, on November 13, 2017, ESMA issued two statements on ICOs.

ESMA notes in a statement for firms that where ICOs qualify as financial instruments, it is likely that the firms involved in ICOs will be conducting regulated investment activities, whereby they need to comply with the relevant legislation, including:

  • Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (2004/39/EC) (“MiFID“). Where the coin or token qualifies as a financial instrument, the process by which a coin or token is created, distributed or traded is likely to involve some MiFID activities and services, such as placing, dealing in or advising on financial instruments.
  • Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD“). An ICO scheme could qualify as an alternative investment fund (“AIF“), to the extent that it is used to raise capital from a number of investors, with a view to investing it in accordance with a defined investment policy.
  • Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) requires publication of a prospectus before the offer of transferable securities to the public or the admission to trading of such securities on a regulated market situated or operating within a member state. Also, the Prospectus Directive specifies that the prospectus should contain the necessary information that is material to an investor for making an informed assessment of the facts and that the information shall be presented in an easily analyzable and comprehensible form.
  • Fourth Money Laundering Directive ((EU) 2015/849) (“MLD4“).

ESMA stresses that any failure by firms to comply with the applicable rules will constitute a breach. Firms involved in ICOs must give due consideration as to whether their activities constitute regulated activities.

A statement for investors by ESMA also alerts them of the high risk of losing all of their invested capital as ICOs are highly speculative investments. ICOs are vulnerable to the risk of fraud or money laundering.

Depending on how they are structured, ICOs may fall outside of the scope of EU law and regulations, in which case investors cannot benefit from the protection that these laws and regulations provide. Also, the price of the coin or token is typically extremely volatile, and investors may not be able to redeem them for a prolonged period.

ESMA Q&A on Trading Obligation for Shares Under MiFID II

Posted on

 

The European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA“) published a press release on November 13, 2017 clarifying the application of the trading obligation for shares to trade certain instruments on-venue under the MiFID II Directive (2014/65/EU).

The press release contains a Q&A about the scope of the trading obligation where there is a chain of transmission of orders. ESMA explains that Article 23(1) of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (Regulation 600/2014) (“MiFIR“) determines the scope of the trading obligation for shares admitted to trading on a regulated market or traded on a trading venue by requiring investment firms to ensure that trades they undertake in shares take place on a regulated market systematic internalizer, multilateral trading facility (MTF), or equivalent third-country venue.

Where there is a chain of transmission of orders concerning those shares, all EU investment firms that are part of the chain should ensure that the ultimate execution of the orders complies with the requirements under Article 23(1) of MiFIR.

The European Commission is preparing equivalence decisions for non-EU jurisdictions whose shares are traded systematically and frequently in the EU. However, the absence of an equivalence decision relating to a particular venue indicates that the Commission currently has no evidence that the EU trading in shares admitted to trading in that third country’s regulated markets can be considered as systematic, regular and frequent.

ESMA Consults on Draft Guidelines on Non–Significant Benchmarks Under Benchmarks Regulation

Posted on

 

On September 29, 2017, ESMA published a consultation paper on draft guidelines for non-significant benchmarks under the Regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts or to measure the performance of investment funds (Regulation (EU) 2016/1011) (Benchmarks Regulation or BMR).

The BMR envisages that ESMA may issue guidelines setting out the obligations that will apply to non-significant benchmarks in four areas. A separate chapter is dedicated to each area in the consultation paper, summarizing the proposed content of the guidelines for each, as well as outlining the objectives and policy issues:

  • Procedures, characteristics and positioning of oversight function, under Article 5 of the BMR (see chapter 5).
  • Appropriateness and verifiability of input data, under Article 11 (see chapter 6).
  • Transparency of methodology, under Article 13 (see chapter 7).
  • Governance and control requirements for supervised contributors, under Article 13 (see chapter 8).

The first three areas listed above apply to administrators of non-significant benchmarks, and the fourth to supervised contributors to non-significant benchmarks.

The proposals in the consultation paper impose lighter requirements for non-significant benchmarks (and their administrators and supervised contributors) in relation to the relevant areas than those for significant benchmarks. ESMA submitted its draft regulatory and implementing technical standards applicable to critical and significant benchmarks to the European Commission in March 2017.

The deadline for comments on the draft guidelines is November 30, 2017.

ESAs Publish 2016 Annual Reports

Posted on

 

On June 15, 2017, ESMA, EIOPA and the EBA (the European Supervisory Authorities (“ESAs“)) each published their annual reports outlining the relevant ESA’s objectives, activities and key achievements in 2016.

ESMA’s annual report summarizes the work carried out by ESMA in 2016 under each of the following activities:

  • Assessing risks to investors, markets and financial stability.
  • Creating a single rule book.
  • Promoting supervisory convergence.
  • Supervising credit rating agencies and trade repositories.

The EBA’s annual report outlines the EBA’s work in 2016, which included:

  • Completing the single rule book applicable to the EU banking sector.
  • Supporting the finalization of the Basel III package of measures and its implementation in the EU.
  • Enhancing its monitoring of different aspects of the single rule book, including on own funds, remuneration practices and significant risk transfers in securitizations.
  • Improving its role in monitoring and assessing key risks in the banking sector across the EU.
  • Monitoring financial innovation and contributing to secure and efficient retail payments in the EU.

EIOPA’s annual report outlines the EIOPA’s work associated with the implementation of the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC) on January 1, 2016, such as the secure collection and storage of data. Other areas of work included:

  • The calculation and publication of risk-free rates on a monthly basis.
  • An EU-wide insurance stress test.
  • The development of a macro-prudential approach to the low interest rate environment in Solvency II.

Advice to the European Commission on a number of issues, including the development of a pan-European personal pension product and, within the context of the Joint Committee of the ESAs, on the key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products.

ESMA Consults on Guidelines on CCP Conflicts of Interest Management Under EMIR

and Posted on

 

On June 1, 2017, ESMA published a consultation paper (ESMA70-151-291) on guidelines relating to central counterparties (“CCPs“) management of conflicts of interest.

ESMA explains that the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR“) only contains generic provisions relating to CCPs’ conflict of interest management. It requires CCPs to act in the best interests of their clearing members and the clients. Therefore, CCPs need to have in place robust organizational arrangements and policies to prevent potential conflicts of interest and to solve them if they occur. ESMA believes that further guidance would be beneficial and further facilitate supervisory convergence on this area.

The purpose of the guidelines is to set out the criteria CCPs should apply to avoid or mitigate the risks of conflicts of interest and to ensure a consistent implementation across CCPs. Areas addressed by the guidelines include:

  • written arrangements to identify and manage any potential conflicts of interest between CCPs, clearing members and clients;
  • where written arrangements are not sufficient, disclosure of conflicts of interest to the clearing member or clients before entering into any new transactions; and
  • possible conflicts with a CCP’s parent undertaking or subsidiary.

The consultation will close on August 24, 2017, upon which ESMA will consider the feedback received to the consultation. ESMA expects to publish a final report on the guidelines by the end of 2017.

EIOPA Publishes Guidance on Authorization and Supervision in Light of Brexit

and Posted on

 

On May 25, 2017, it was reported on Reuters that the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA“) is to publish guidance directed to national regulators on the principles for authorization and supervision to ensure that they do not undercut one another in their attempts to attract firms moving from London due to Brexit. EIOPA is monitoring developments in this area and will publish guidance in due course.

According to Reuters, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA“) is also to publish guidelines on this issue before the summer. ESMA’s chairman has said it has discussed the potential risks of new “letter box” companies being set up in the EU, which would delegate key operations to group companies in London. ESMA warns that these arrangements could undermine stability.

ESMA Issues Report on Distributed Ledger Technology

Posted on

 

On February 7, 2017, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA“) published a report regarding distributed ledger technology (“DLT“).

DLT is a developing technology that has the potential to significantly alter and bring a number of benefits to securities markets. These benefits include, among others, enhanced efficiency in post‑trade processes, enhanced reporting and reduced costs. With these prospective benefits, however, come potential risks and legal questions.

ESMA has therefore issued a report that summarizes its position on DLT, with a note that it will continue to monitor this dynamic technology and consider whether a regulatory response may become a necessity.

The full report is available here.

ESMA Publishes Guide on Major Holdings Notifications

Posted on

 

On February 3, 2017, a guide was published by ESMA that looked at major holdings notifications under the Transparency Directive. The Transparency Directive established a minimum level of information that needed to be provided to the public in relation to securities across the EU, and the recently issued guide discusses requirements that vary from country to country within the EEA and will assist readers in establishing the different requirements.

The guide, which is available here, summarizes the national requirements in relation to making and publishing notifications of major holdings.

ESMA Publishes Opinion on the Effect of Excluding Fund Managers From the Scope of MiFIR Intervention Powers

Posted on

 

On January 12, 2017, the ESMA published an opinion on the impact of exclusion of fund management from the entire scope of MiFIR (Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation) (Regulation 600/2014).

Although, under Articles 40 and 42 of MiFIR, the ESMA and other NCAs (national competent authorities) can prohibit and restrict the sale, marketing and/or distribution of specific financial instruments or shares in Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), this power applies only to credit institutions and MiFID firms and excludes from its scope any alternative investment fund managers that might be authorized under the AIFM Directive (2011/61/EU) or to UCITS management companies so authorized under the UCITS IV Directive (2009/65/EC).

The ESMA has commented with the opinion that the intervention powers within MiFIR may create arbitrage situations between fund management companies themselves, as well as between fund management companies and MiFID firms. It has also stated that both the ESMA and relevant NCAs should be given the power to apply the restrictions under MiFIR directly to fund management companies.

ESMA Publishes New Methodology for Mandatory Peer Reviews of CCPS Authorization and Supervision Under EMIR

Posted on

 

On January 5, 2017, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA“) published its methodology (ESMA71-1154262120-155) for mandatory peer reviews relating to the authorization and supervision of central counterparties (“CCPs“) under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR“) (the Regulation on OTC derivative transactions, CCPs and trade repositories (Regulation 648/2012)).

The scope of peer reviews under EMIR is defined, and ESMA has a specific role to further supervisory cooperation. Based on the experience of the first peer review undertaken in 2016 in the context of EMIR, ESMA’s Board of Supervisors decided that a methodology for the new type of peer reviews should build on the existing methodology. Further reviews will be conducted on, at least, a yearly basis.

The methodology sets out information relating to the legal basis and scope of the review, the topics covered, the assessment specifications and the approach taken to the questionnaire and report.

The application of the methodology will be restricted to peer reviews undertaken in the application of Article 26 of EMIR. This scope may be reconsidered by ESMA at a later date, when the mandatory peer reviews relating to other EU legislation need to be launched (for example, in relation to the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) and the Regulation on improving securities settlement and regulating central securities depositories (Regulation 909/2014)).