United Nations Climate Change
Our aim is to help our clients understand the potential opportunities and challenges that COP25 may have on their business.
Author Richard Sheen
Phew – the roller coaster ride continues. European asset managers will be busy trying to make sense of the unexpected outcome of the recent UK General Election which resulted in a hung Parliament and a weakened Conservative minority Government. There had been an initial perception that these changes in the political landscape might result in a softening of the UK approach to the Brexit negotiations with the City and businesses becoming more vocal in demanding that their concerns are listened to and that a full on “hard- Brexit” is going to be more difficult to achieve. Certainly there has been much recent discussion of a potential transitional arrangement.
Political opinion, however, remains very much divided and it seems that asset managers are continuing to progress their contingency planning for the “worst-case” scenario. The UK regulator, the FCA, has sent letters to several of Britain’s largest asset management companies requesting detailed information about their Brexit contingency plans. It has been reported that firms such as Fidelity, Legal & General Investment Management, Columbia Threadneedle and M&G are planning to ramp up their European operations. A renewed period of political instability in the UK is not expected to assist the near term economic outlook which presents additional concerns for managers.
All of this is to be contrasted with improved growth in the Eurozone and the election of an ardently pro-EU centrist President in France apparently keen to attract financial services businesses to Paris. To compound matters, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has recently issued a set of principles designed to address the potential “regulatory and supervisory arbitrage” resultant from Brexit – and more specifically the “risk” that UK firms seek to minimise the transfer of substantive operations to the EU by relying on outsourcing or delegation of certain functions to UK entities. This move is designed to address a concern that some EU national regulators might permit the use of letterbox companies in order to attract UK managers.
Notwithstanding Brexit, the asset management industry remains vulnerable to the unabated raft of EU and UK regulatory change (more below) and the continuing squeeze on profit margins in part resultant from greater competition from low cost providers, client pressure but also the impact of the cost of compliance with toughening regulatory standards and new technology spend. Much publicity surrounded the news that Vanguard is launching an on-line platform for the distribution of its range of low cost funds direct to the public in the UK and the potential impact this might have on price competition between managers.
One of the biggest concerns has been how managers adapt their processes to comply with the rules under MiFID II which come into force in January 2018. One particular recent concern has been a recent statement by ESMA that all shares in non-UCIT funds should be considered automatically “complex”. The Association of Investment Companies is pushing back on this but if this view is maintained this position could impact upon the retail distribution of investment trust and other closed-ended listed investment company shares. Whilst complex financial instruments can be sold to retail investors without advice, distributors and platforms must assess the background of such investors before allowing them access to these products.
Firms are also digesting the FCA’s final report of its asset management market study. Arguably the FCA’s final report is not as onerous nor as sweeping as the industry had feared, but with the publication of a consultation paper, a future market study into investment platforms and the possibility of a CMA investigation into investment consultancy services there is plenty more to come. Some industry commentators have noted that the implementation of the proposals will likely reduce fees and increase operational and compliance costs, further eroding fund managers’ revenue margins. These pressures could convert into further M&A activity and market consolidation particularly in the active management space.
Finally a round up on fundraising activity over the last few months.
Fund raising activity for private funds continues to reflect a fragmentation of the market with the most successful fund raises being undertaken in relation to fashionable niche asset classes or by substantial established asset managers.
However, there is a trend towards increasing allocations to private equity style investment mandates (that is to say mandates which are characterised by long term holding periods and active improvement of assets). This increase in allocation looks set to continue and appears to be fuelling further fund raising activity by established managers. It has been recently reported that a number of managers are intending to raise their largest ever funds over the next twelve months with three managers accounting for in excess of €6 billion.
For listed funds, the year so far has seen strong secondary fundraising activity for listed investment companies with a reported £5 billion of new money raised. The focus continues to be on income producing funds and real asset strategies with infrastructure, real estate and lending amongst the most popular asset classes – a trend that began around 2012 and seems to be continuing. There have been around 8 new IPOs of listed funds on London. Recent deals announced include Residential Secure Income, a REIT, which is planning to raise up to £300 million from investors to acquire new social housing properties with inflation-linked returns.
Author: Imogen Garner
There are two methods which allow the marketing of alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the EU by alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs). The first method is a marketing “passport” which has been introduced by the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) to allow AIFs to be marketed to professional investors across the EU subject to certain conditions being met. The second method allows AIFs to be marketed in a specific member state in accordance with that member state’s private placement regime, subject to certain conditions being met.
We have just updated two guides concerning the AIFMD.
Both guides cover 15 EU jurisdictions – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
The first guide considers whether the AIFMD marketing passport is working in practice and is a useful tool for managers as it illustrates the significant differences across jurisdictions.
The second guide looks at the requirements that non-EEA managers face when marketing non-EEA alternative investment funds to professional EEA investors.
Should you wish to receive a copy of the updated guides please contact Imogen Garner.
On June 28, 2017, the FCA published its long awaited final report on its asset management market study. The final report, which is over 100 pages long plus five annexes, confirms some of the findings set out in the FCA’s interim report published on November 18, 2016, in particular the FCA’s assessment regarding competition in the asset management industry, communications with investors and practices in the investment consultancy sector generally.
In summary the FCA found that
The FCA proposes numerous remedies but one of the key points to note is that their implementation will take place in a number of stages so the feel of the final report is not quite the seismic shock the asset management industry originally feared. Overall the remedies can be split into three groups.
Final remedies that do not require further consultation
Remedies that the FCA is consulting on alongside the final report
The final report sets out the regulator’s overall proposals but the accompanying consultation paper (CP17/18: Consultation on implementing asset management market study remedies and changes to Handbook (CP17/18)) provides the much needed detail on key proposals that are designed to
Remedies for which the FCA gives its initial views on the proposals in the final report and plans to publish detailed consultations at a later stage
In addition, the FCA states that it will publish its decision later this year on whether to refer the market for investment consultancy services to the Competition and Markets Authority.
As mentioned earlier CP17/18 is worth scrutinising as it contains many of the FCA’s key proposals. Like the FCA’s final report it is quite a chunky document being some 78 pages long. The deadline for comments on the FCA’s proposals is September 28, 2017.
The FCA states that the proposals in CP17/18 complement other domestic and European work in the asset management sector including the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and the Packaged Retail and Insurance based Investment Products Regulation. Importantly, where the FCA feels that these initiatives will address concerns, the regulator is not taking any further action.
As initially proposed in its interim report the FCA has said that it is going ahead with plans to introduce a single all-in fee to increase the visibility of all charges taken from the fund and impose more discipline on overspend relative to charging estimates. In the final report the FCA notes that most asset managers preferred the current ongoing charges figures becoming an actual charge, with the manager providing an estimate of any implicit and explicit transaction costs. However, mindful that MiFID II comes into place on January 3, 2018, the regulator has said that further work needs to be carried out and it will consult on proposals later this year.
The remedies in CP17/18 can be grouped into the following issues
The changes that the FCA is proposing are intended to strengthen the rules requiring authorised fund managers (AFMs) to act in the best interests of their investors. Changes are also proposed to the governance structure of AFMs.
In relation to the key issue of scope, the remedies that the FCA proposes will apply to all UK-authorised firms that carry out the function of an AFM for collective investment schemes that are authorised and domiciled in the UK, as well as UK UCITS management companies managing EEA UCITS schemes. But they will not apply to UCITS management companies domiciled in the EEA that are accessing the UK market through the UCITS management passport, nor to full-scope Alternative Investment Fund Managers that operate UK funds, or market funds domiciled in the EEA in the UK. The FCA is also not calling into question the role of the depositary of an authorised fund.
The FCA proposes a new value for money rule which requires an AFM to assess whether value for money has been provided to fund investors. This assessment must take place on an ongoing basis and must be formally documented at least once a year. The FCA proposes that the assessment must consider at least the following points: economies of scale, fees and charges, shares classes, quality of services and transparency.
In terms of increasing the accountability of the AFM board, the FCA states that when the senior managers’ regime and certification regime is extended to almost all financial services firms it will propose a new prescribed responsibility to ensure that asset management firms comply with the obligation to act in the best interests of investors. This new prescribed responsibility will be allocated to the chair of the AFM board and will include assessing value for money in accordance with the regulator’s rules. The chair of the AFM board will also be responsible for taking ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that the AFM and its board adheres to the rules. As a senior manager the chair of the AFM board will need to be preapproved by the FCA.
The FCA also proposes a rule that will require AFMs to appoint a minimum of two, and at least 25% of the total board membership, independent directors to the AFM board who meet certain specified requirements. Such requirements include a proposal that independent directors are not eligible for reappointment to the same AFM board until five years since the end of their last appointment have lapsed. Other eligibility criteria include that the individual may not
However, the FCA is not proposing to introduce a rule which limits the number of AFM boards on which a nonexecutive director may serve. It has also left it to the AFMs themselves to decide whether an independent director should be appointed as chair.
The FCA’s proposals are divided into two issues, investors in pre-RDR classes that no longer pay trail commission and investors in pre-RDR classes that continue to pay trail commission.
In relation to those investors who do not pay trail commission, the FCA proposes to clarify and re-issue the previous guidance contained in Finalised Guidance 14/4 on dealing with hard-to-reach unitholders. It also proposes to clarify that the AFM can undertake a mandatory conversion, if the following conditions are met
The power to undertake a mandatory conversion must also be exercised in accordance with the client’s best interests rule (COBS 2.1.1R(1)).
The FCA’s current position is that trail commission arrangements entered before 2012 can continue under certain conditions. The FCA is not taking steps to introduce an end date for trail commission legacy business although it states in CP17/18 that “it may consider it in the future”. In the meantime the FCA has said that it is exploring the issue in more detail and welcomes any information that firms may provide that will help it understand the magnitude of the issue and the number of investors affected.
The FCA is aware that some AFMs operate a managers’ box which is a mechanism whereby the AFM, using its own capital, stands between the fund and those investors who are entering or leaving the fund, rather than the investors transacting directly with the fund. In dual-priced funds there is a difference between the price investors pay to buy units in the fund and the price to sell units. The FCA’s concern is whether AFMs might be profiting unfairly from box management.
In CP17/18 the FCA acknowledges that there is currently no explicit rule in COLL that allows profits to be made from box management, although the language used in COLL 6.2.9G implies that the manager could keep risk-free box profits.
The FCA proposes that AFMs will be permitted to retain any profits made from holding positions between pricing points when using their own capital. However, an AFM will be required to pass ‘risk-free’ box profits (i.e. profits generated by netting off transactions) to the fund. AFMs will also disclose their policy on operating a manager’s box and how any profits will be treated in the prospectus. COLL 6.6.4R requires a depositary to take reasonable care to ensure that the AFM manages the scheme in accordance with COLL 6.2. The FCA considers that the impact of COLL 6.6.4R is that depositaries will oversee compliance with its proposed rule changes.
The FCA also sets out for discussion its views on extending the consultation proposals to other types of investment products including unit-linked funds, with-profits business, pensions and closed-ended investment companies. In relation to the latter the FCA states that investment trusts will not be in scope of its proposed COLL rules on AFMs to consider value for money. However, some narrow elements of the FCA’s proposed governance remedies already exist, for example listed investment companies are subject to an ‘independence rule’ (Listing Rule 15.2.11R to 15.2.19R). Also, the regulator notes that MiFID II will introduce, from January 3, 2018, product governance requirements for MiFID II scope products which may include investment trusts. The FCA states that it will consider the impact of MiFID II with regard to fund governance issues for investment companies.
The Alternative Investment Management Association has published a response to the FCA’s asset management market study:
“While our industry has not been the primary focus of this study, we do of course support the goals of increased transparency and better alignment of interests between fund managers and investors that are at its core. As our own research has found, alternative asset managers actively discuss with institutional investors about how to deliver the best possible value for money. Dynamic fee structures which include high watermarks, hurdle rates, rebates and differentiated fees according to the size of investments or the length of lock-up periods show that the industry is receptive to investor requests for ever-closer alignment. We look forward to working with the FCA on the next steps in this process.” – Jack Inglis, CEO, AIMA.
The Investment Association has also responded:
“Our industry looks after pensions and investments for millions of UK households, helping them to lead more prosperous lives into retirement. With this role comes significant responsibility. We strongly support the FCA’s objective of ensuring our industry serves its customers in a competitive, accountable and transparent manner.
‘Many of the key recommendations work with the grain of European legislation already in the pipeline to introduce more clarity and transparency for consumers. We will work closely with the FCA as it looks further into the detail of how to present costs and charges in the clearest way for savers and how it will develop more independent oversight of investment funds in a way that is effective and proportionate.
‘We welcome the regulator’s recognition of the industry’s work to date on developing a consistent and transparent disclosure code for charges and costs which can be built on further with consumer groups. The FCA has listened to our calls to make it easier for savers to switch between share classes, which we welcome.
‘Asset managers compete every day to attract clients and investors and are focused on delivering the best outcomes for them. Our priority now is to have a meaningful dialogue with the regulator about the implementation of the recommendations, to ensure savers are getting the best possible deal. A pragmatic timetable is key to achieving this, given the major regulatory changes already in the pipeline and the preparations for Brexit.”
Arguably the FCA’s final report is not as onerous nor as sweeping as the asset management industry had feared. However, with the publication of the consultation paper, a future market study into investment platforms and the possibility of a CMA investigation into investment consultancy services there is plenty more to come. As the title of this note states, the FCA final report was not quite an earthquake but beware of the aftershocks.
Author: Simon Lovegrove
Cyber-resilience is not just an information technology issue but a regulatory issue that should be high on the agenda of the senior management team of an asset manager.
In his Chairman’s foreword to the FCA Business Plan 2017/18 John Griffith- Jones warned the financial services sector that among the increasing risk areas the regulator had identified one in particular stood out – cyber-resilience.
As recent events have shown, cyberattacks are increasing in scale and sophistication. However, whilst news and media attention in the UK has focused on the cyber-attack on the National Health Service (UK NHS), cyber-risk is something that has been on the regulatory radar for some time. The reason for this is that the FCA has seen a significant increase in cyber-attacks reported by firms over the past couple of years. Financial crime statistics from the UK Office for National Statistics suggest that there were 2.11 million victims of cybercrime and 2.5 million incidents of bank and credit account fraud in 2015/16 alone. However, it is not just financial institutions that have been targeted. In February 2017 the internal systems of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority were compromised in an attempt to infiltrate Polish banks with malware. In the UK the FCA has seen attempts to use the FCA brand in phishing campaigns against the UK financial sector.
Often cyber-resilience is thought of as solely an IT issue. However, this perspective is flawed as financial institutions’ resilience to cyber-attacks has significant implications for markets and consumers thereby linking it to both the FCA’s and PRA’s statutory objectives. From an FCA perspective the linkage is to both its strategic objective (to ensure that the relevant markets function well) and two of its operational objectives (the protection of consumers and the protection of financial markets).
Some of the key FCA principles and rules pertinent to cyber-resilience are
Following the recent cyber-attack on the UK NHS, the FCA established a cyber-resilience web page, where it summarised its requirements in the following terms:
“Firms of all sizes need to develop a ‘security culture’, from the board down to every employee. Firms should be able to identify and prioritize their information assets – hardware, software and people. They should protect these assets, detect breaches, respond to and recover from incidents, and constantly evolve to meet new threats.”
Further “soft” guidance has been given in a speech1 by Nausicaa Delfas, the FCA Executive Director. One of the key points in her speech was that firms had to get the ‘basics’ right. Many firms believe that they are, but the regulator feels that the reality is different pointing to the 2016 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report that found that ten vulnerabilities accounted for 85 per cent of successful breaches in an analysis of 2,260 data breaches and 64,199 security incidents from 61 countries.
Firms conducting rigorous patch management and getting ‘cyber-basics’ right are key for the FCA which argues that firms properly implementing schemes such as ‘Cyber Essentials’ or the ‘10 steps to cyber security’ could eliminate about 80 per cent of the cyber-threat they face. The FCA also wants firms to consider specific cyber-risks, urging them to carry out robust and comprehensive risk assessments focussed on the impact of a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on their systems.
Whilst accepting that some IT concentration may be inevitable (with iCloud for example) the FCA is also looking for firms to consider concentration risk when subscribing to a given service. In relation to outsourcing to the ‘cloud’ and other third-party IT services, the FCA issued finalised guidance2 last year which illustrated ways in which the regulator’s rules could be complied with.
Awareness and education are also critical components for firms. In her speech Nausicaa Delfas discussed the need for firms to stop using a staff “policy” as the sole baseline for security training on the basis that staff view this as a corporate piece of paper that is easily forgotten. The FCA has been impressed with firms that have adopted approaches that have taken staff on a journey and have helped them become security focused individuals. Such approaches have included: introducing fake phishing scams, educating staff who click on them, rewarding those who avoid/spot attacks, and taking further action on those who persistently do not.
Nausicaa Delfas also mentioned in her speech that there was a role for non-executive directors who should be able to satisfy themselves that their firm is managing cyber-risk effectively. The Institute of Directors specifically calls for non-executive directors to satisfy themselves “that systems of risk management are robust and defensible.”
Chapter 5 in Part 1 and Chapters 6 and 10 in Part 2 of the FCA’s Financial Crime: A Guide for Firms (the Guide) outline the FCA’s requirements for data 2 FCA Finalised Guidance 16/5 – Guidance for firms outsourcing to the ‘cloud’ and other third-party IT services (July 2016). security and include examples of good and poor practice.
Chapter 5 of the Guide covers
In terms of governance the FCA states in the Guide that firms should be alert to the financial crime risks associated with holding customer data and have written data security policies and procedures which are proportionate, accurate, up to date and relevant to the day-to-day work of staff. Adding to this, the Guide sets out the following selfassessment questions
In terms of controls the Guide states that the FCA expects firms to put in place systems and controls to minimise the risk that their operation and information assets might be exploited by thieves and fraudsters. Internal procedures such as IT controls and physical security measures should be designed to protect against unauthorized access to customer data. The FCA also supports the Information Commissioner’s position that it is not appropriate for customer data to be taken off-site on laptops or other portable devices which are not encrypted. Self-assessment questions on controls include
Chapter 5 of the Guide reflects the contents of an FSA report that was published in 2008 which set out the findings of a thematic review into how financial services firms were addressing the risk that customer data may be lost or stolen and used to commit financial crime. Despite its age the FSA report is still worth reading.3
Chapter 6 of the Guide primarily focuses on controls and includes discussion on access rights, data backup, lap-tops and disposal of customer 3 The FSA report can be found at www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/ other/data_security.pdf. data. Chapter 10 of the Guide covers the small firms’ financial crime review and includes coverage of data disposal.
Under Principle 11 of the Principles for Businesses4 a firm must report material cyber events to the FCA. Firms may consider an incident material if it
The Hedge Fund Standards Board (HFSB) has on its website some useful materials on cyber-security. In particular it has a cyber-security memo that sets out at a high level
The HFSB states on its website that it also runs table-top cyber-attack simulation exercises with its members so that the responses to realistic cyber- 4 A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the appropriate regulator appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice. attack scenarios can be explored. The website contains the results of the HFSB’s first cyber-attack simulation, dated January 2016, noting that key insights included
Cyber-resilience is not just an IT issue but a regulatory issue that should be high on the agenda of the senior management team of an asset manager. The senior management team, who are involved in the risk decisions on how to generate revenue, also need to be discussing how to protect critical information and revenue streams and the enabling business processes and systems. These discussions are not just information technology discussions but broader risk discussions surrounding threats, likelihood and tolerance. The leadership team’s understanding of the risks, threats and impacts need to be clear and routinely updated.
Processes need to be managed holistically which means, among other things, clear policies and standards, good management information and a sensible approach to cyber-compliance. Some formal means of oversight, perhaps through the establishment of a cyber-risk governance committee, might also be needed that leads on the firm’s cyber-strategy, monitoring and reporting of risks and threats, and resiliency initiatives.
Staff training is also key given that many cyber-attacks exploit people and/or processes by using social engineering (for example sending emails with tempting but malicious links). However, such training needs to be innovative, taking staff on a journey which helps turn them into security focused individuals.
Finally, a plan needs to be in place as to how a firm will respond to a cyberattack and the firm then has to ensure that it rehearses it. If it does not, an incident is unlikely to go well.
Author: Simon Lovegrove
With the UK general election leading to a hung Parliament there have been inevitable questions about Brexit. In this article we step outside the politics and ask whether Article 50 can be legally revoked.
On June 9, 2017, the UK woke up to the news that the general election result was a hung Parliament with no political party gaining an overall majority in the House of Commons. The official election results were
The target number of seats for any party to form a Government in the UK is 326 seats in the House of Commons. At the time of writing it appears likely that the Conservatives with 318 seats will be forming a minority Government with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). The DUP has worked with previous Conservative Governments although it will not be in a formal coalition. Theresa May has said that she will remain as Prime Minister.
The general election result is less than a year after the UK’s referendum on EU membership which took place on June 23, 2016. Inevitably questions were raised as to how the general election result will impact Brexit, including whether Brexit could be revoked or suspended.
What happens next to Brexit, whether the “hard Brexit” advocated by Prime Minister May is softened, will be a matter for the politicians which is outside the scope of this article. From a legal perspective the debate regarding whether or not Article 50 can be revoked has been rumbling for some time.
The text of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that:
On March 29, 2017, the UK submitted its letter to the EU Council’s President Donald Tusk formally notifying him of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50(2) of the TEU. Importantly, until a withdrawal agreement is concluded between the EU and UK or the negotiating period in Article 50(3) of the TEU expires, the UK remains a member of the EU.
The problem with Article 50 is that it does not specify one way or the other as to whether or not a Member State can revoke an Article 50 notification once it has been submitted. In addition, Article 50 has never been used before.
On May 29, 2017, it was reported in the press that a legal challenge in Ireland on whether Article 50 could be revoked was dropped. The papers were originally lodged in the High Court of Dublin earlier this year in a bid to seek a ruling on the issue from the European Court of Justice. But the claim was ultimately dropped given the length of time the legal challenge would take and the costs involved.
In the UK the House of Lords has been conducting a number of inquiries into Brexit. The Lords’ Constitutional Committee looked into the invoking of Article 50. In relation to a revocation of an Article 50 notification the Lord’s Constitutional Committee summed up the position:
“It is unclear whether the UK could, after triggering Article 50, unilaterally choose to withdraw its notification of withdrawal from the EU (thereby stopping the two year countdown to withdrawal). The House of Lords European Union Committee concluded in 2015 that “There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial.” Others argue that once triggered, Article 50 may not be unilaterally revoked by the member state concerned, although it could be reversed by the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.
Participants at our seminar were also divided on this point. As one noted, “there is nothing in Article 50 itself one way or another; it does not say that you can retract or, once invoked, that you cannot retract. So it is left to the lawyers to have those enjoyable disputes to sort it out.” Should any attempt by the UK to unilaterally withdraw its notification under Article 50 be disputed by another member state, the matter would be decided by the European Court of Justice.”
Their Lordships concluded:
“It is unclear whether a notification under Article 50, once made, could be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK without the consent of other EU member states. In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse.”
The European Parliament has taken a fairly hard line as regards the possibility of the UK revoking its Article 50 notification on the basis that it could possibly be used as a negotiating tactic. A European Parliament resolution of April 5, 2017 noted that a revocation notification should be subject to conditions set by the EU 27: “whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27, so that it cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve on the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership”
The European Parliament briefing note on Article 50 TEU: Withdrawal of a Member State from the EU discusses revocation further:
“Some have proposed the use of the Article 50 procedure to force a renegotiation of a Member State’s membership of the EU. In this context, the question could be posed as to whether – once a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU, and a withdrawal agreement has been negotiated – it can, depending on the results of the negotiations, unilaterally revoke its notification and suspend the withdrawal procedure. Most commentators argue that this is impossible or at least doubtful, from a legal point of view. Indeed Article 50 TEU does not expressly provide for the revocation of a notice of withdrawal and establishes that, once opened, the withdrawal process ends either within two years or later, if this deadline is extended by agreement.”
“Furthermore, it should be noted that the event triggering the withdrawal is the unilateral notification as such and not the agreement between the withdrawing state and the EU. The merely declaratory character of the withdrawal agreement for cancellation of membership derives from the fact that the withdrawal takes place even if an agreement is not concluded (Article 50(3) TEU).”
Interestingly, the European Parliament briefing note adds:
“This does not mean, however, that the withdrawal process could not be suspended, if there was mutual agreement between the withdrawing state, the remaining Member States and the EU institutions, rather than a unilateral revocation.”
A further discussion of revocation can be found in the European Parliament briefing note, UK withdrawal from the European Union. It states that:
“One important question is whether a notification under Article 50 TEU can be withdrawn once it has been triggered. Article 50 TEU is silent on this matter. Although the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a notification of intention to withdraw from a treaty ‘may be revoked at any time before it takes effect’, the special arrangements of the TEU take precedence.”
“There is wide agreement that the withdrawal process could be suspended if all the other Member States agree to this, as the Member States are the ‘masters of the Treaties’. The European Council, perhaps on condition that the new decision to revoke the notification is taken in conformity with the constitutional requirements of the withdrawing Member State, could therefore decide by consensus to accept any revocation of the Article 50 TEU notification, although the agreement of other EU institutions could possibly also be required. Some commentators have suggested, at least theoretically, two other scenarios if the withdrawing state and the rest of the Member States reached an agreement that the former will not in the end leave the EU: either the future relationship between the EU and the withdrawing Member State, following the ending of the negotiations, merely reaffirms the application of the Treaties to that state; or, the parties could agree to extend the negotiations indefinitely and, possibly, insert a protocol into the Treaties to confirm that the notification of withdrawal under Article 50 has been revoked.”
“By contrast, the unilateral revocation of an Article 50 notification appears much more problematic. Some commentators argue that a Member State cannot unilaterally revoke its notification to leave the EU (in the sense of legally compelling the rest of the Member States to accept this revocation). The event triggering withdrawal proceedings is a Member State’s unilateral notification under Article 50(2) TEU, effectively starting a countdown to the deadline (which may be extended if the European Council, together with the withdrawing Member State, so agrees), by which the withdrawal process must end, unless a concluded withdrawal agreement provides otherwise (Article 50(3) TEU). For this reason, as well as in order to prevent any abuse on the part of the withdrawing Member State – for example, stalling the negotiations by withdrawing the notification, then renotifying and re-starting the two-year period, thus bypassing the agreement of the other Member States – the possibility of a unilateral revocation of the notification at a later date is thought by these commentators to be legally doubtful.”
“Others, however, believe that the unilateral revocation of an Article 50 withdrawal notice is legally possible, if made in accordance with the national constitutional requirements of the withdrawing Member State. In this scenario, if the withdrawing state decided to stop the exit process, the other Member States would not be legally able to force that state to leave the EU. A state expresses its ‘intention’ to withdraw, and an intention may be withdrawn. Any other situation would amount to an expulsion from the EU, which would not have been the purpose of the drafters of Article 50. However, some commentators specify that this unilateral revocation is possible under certain constraints, notably if the Member State has genuinely and in good faith taken a new decision not to withdraw from the EU (a decision which must not be about the rejection of a specific agreement).”
“The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) might be called upon to rule on such a revocation’s compatibility with the Treaties; as it is a matter of interpretation of EU law, the CJEU would be the ultimate interpretative authority on the issue.”
Financial institutions will be watching carefully how the politics of Brexit unfold in the next couple of days particularly as negotiations were to formally begin on 19 June. The European Parliament papers suggest that the withdrawal process under Article 50 of the TEU could be suspended if there is agreement among Member States. Unilateral withdrawal is more problematic and may involve the CJEU. Whilst important legal questions, both are significantly greater political questions.
ESMA has recently consulted on the MMF’s level 2 measures.
On May 24, 2017, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a consultation paper (CP) on its draft technical advice, implementing technical standards and guidelines under the Money Market Funds Regulation (MMFR).
The MMFR is the new European Union (EU) regulatory framework aimed at ensuring the stability and integrity of Money Market Funds (MMFs) which are established, managed or marketed in the EU. It was adopted by the European Council on May 16, 2017 after a long legislative process that began with a first reading in September 2013. It follows behind the SEC Money Market Fund Reform Rules which have been in effect in the United States since October 2016.
An MMF for the purposes of the MMFR is an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) or alternative investment fund that invests in short-term assets and has distinct or cumulative objectives offering returns in line with money market rates or preserving the value of the investment. There are three types of MMF that may be established, managed or marketed in the EU: (a) a variable net asset value (VNAV) MMF; (b) a public debt constant net asset value (CNAV) MMF that invests 99.5 per cent of its assets in qualifying government debt; and (c) a low volatility net asset value (LVNAV) MMF. The MMFR also distinguishes between short-term and standard MMFs, which are subject to different portfolio and risk management requirements.
It is anticipated that the new framework will dramatically alter the MMF landscape in Europe. Among the more significant changes are limitations on the types of MMFs that can continue to apply amortised cost accounting to support a CNAV and the introduction of liquidity fees, redemption gates and suspensions in prescribed circumstances. Although some of the more controversial proposals that were originally put forward have not been retained, including the three per cent capital buffer for CNAV MMFs, the requirements regarding authorisation, eligibility of investments, internal credit quality assessment, portfolio composition, valuation, transparency and reporting will ensure that the MMFR presents a significant new compliance challenge for MMF managers.
The MMFR will enter into force 20 days after its formal publication in the Official Journal of the EU and an 18 month implementation timeframe will then commence with most of its provisions entering into force in 12 months. The European Commission will review the MMFR five years after entry into force and will consider whether changes are to be made to the regime for public debt CNAV MMFs and LVNAV MMFs.
The CP contains the detailed provisions that are necessary for the MMFR’s implementation including key proposals relating to asset liquidity and credit quality, the establishment of a reporting template and stress test scenarios.
The consultation closes on August 7, 2017. ESMA will finalise the technical advice, implementing technical standards and guidelines by the end of this year.
Author: Simon Lovegrove
A round-up of recent regulatory developments in the EU and UK. To receive daily updates on regulatory developments subscribe to our blog, Regulation tomorrow.
|ESMA updates MiFID II / MiFIR Q&As||07.07.17||The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) updates its MiFID II / MiFIR Q&As on: commodity derivatives issues, market data issues and market structure issues. ESMA also updated its Q&As on investor protection topics.|
|FCA MiFID II Policy Statement||03.07.17||
The FCA publishes Policy Statement 17/14: Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II implementation – Policy Statement II. Among other things the FCA states in this Policy Statement that, contrary to its earlier proposals, it will not apply the changes in the best execution rules in MiFID II to Alternative Investment Fund Managers.
|Money Markets Funds Regulation published in OJ||30.06.17||
There was published in the Official Journal of the EU the Regulation on money market funds. The Regulation applies from 21 July 2018, with the exception of Articles 11(4), 15(7), 22 and 37(4) which apply from 20 July 2017.
There are currently two kinds of money market funds (MMFs) in the EU that are used for short-term financing for companies and government entities:
The Regulation lays down rules for MMFs, in particular the composition of their portfolios and the valuation of their assets, to ensure the stability of their structure and to guarantee that they invest in well-diversified assets of a good credit quality. It also introduces common standards to increase the liquidity of MMFs, to ensure that they can face sudden redemption requests. Common rules are also established to ensure that the fund manager has a good understanding of investor behaviour, and to provide investors and supervisors with adequate information. The Regulation prohibits sponsor support from third parties, including banks.
The Regulation also introduces a new category of ‘low volatility net asset value’ (LVNAV) MMFs.
Under the Regulation, MMFs will be subject to new and strengthened liquidity requirements as well as other safeguards. In the case of CNAV and LVNAV MMFs, there are also additional safeguards such as “liquidity fees and redemption gates”. These are designed to prevent and limit the effects of sudden investor runs.
ESMA updates MiFID II / MiFIR investor protection Q&A
ESMA adds 14 new Q&As to its Questions and Answers document on the implementation of investor protection topics under MiFID II and MiFIR. The new Q&As cover the following topics
ESMA publishes final report on product governance guidelines to safeguard investors
ESMA publishes a final report containing the final version of guidelines on the MiFID II product governance requirements.
For manufacturers of financial instruments the guidelines include the following topics
For distributors of financial instruments the guidelines include the following topics
The guidelines also cover the following issues that are applicable to both manufacturers and distributors
The guidelines also include illustrative examples and case studies.
ESMA updates MiFID II Q&As
ESMA updates its MiFID II Q&As. The updated Q&As include new answers on the following topics
Capital Markets Union: Agreement reached on securitisation
Council of the EU announces that it has reached an agreement with the European Parliament on proposals aimed at facilitating the development of a securitisation market in Europe. The agreement covers two draft Regulations
In terms of next steps, the agreement will be submitted to EU ambassadors for endorsement on behalf of the Council, following technical finalisation of the texts. The European Parliament and Council will then be called on to adopt the proposed egulations at first reading. The Regulations require a qualified majority for adoption by the Council, in agreement with the European Parliament.
EU agrees to more support for venture capital and social enterprises
The European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission reach agreement on the European venture capital funds Regulation review. The Commission originally proposed an overhaul of the existing European Venture Capital Funds (EuVECA) and the European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (EuSEF) Regulations in 2016 as part of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan.
Specifically, the agreement reached
ESMA issues principles on supervisory approach to relocations from the UK
ESMA publishes an opinion setting out general principles aimed at fostering consistency in authorisation, supervision and enforcement related to the relocation of entities, activities and functions from the UK. The opinion is addressed to the national
The opinion states
ESMA updates MAR Q&As
ESMA publishes updated Q&As on the Market Abuse Regulation. The updated Q&As include new answers regarding
ESMA updates Q&As on application of AIFMD and UCITS Directive
ESMA publishes updated Q&As on the application of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) and the UCITS Directive.
The AIFMD Q&As include three new questions and answers on
The UCITS Directive Q&As include one new question and answer on the application to UCITS of the exemption for intragroup transactions under Article 4(2) of EMIR, if subject to the clearing obligation of Article 4(1) of EMIR.
ESMA consults on draft technical advice, ITS and guidelines under MMF Regulation
ESMA publishes a consultation paper on draft technical advice, implementing technical standards and guidelines under the Money Market Funds Regulation. The key proposals relate to asset liquidity and credit quality, the establishment of a reporting template and stress test scenarios. The deadline for comments on the consultation paper is August 7, 2017.
ESMA clarifies the concept of trade on a trading venue under MiFID II
ESMA publishes an opinion that seeks to clarify the concept of “traded on a trading venue” (TOTV), which is relevant for a number of provisions under MiFID II and MiFIR.
The opinion states the following “ESMA is of the view that only OTC derivatives sharing the same reference data details as the derivatives traded on a trading venue should be considered to be TOTV and, hence, subject to the MiFIR transparency requirements and to transaction reporting according to Article 26(2)(a) of MiFIR.”
In this context, “sharing the same reference data details” should mean that the OTC derivatives should share the same values as the ones reported in accordance with the fields of Regulation (EU) 2017/585 [Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2017/585 of 14 July 2016 supplementing MiFIR with regard to regulatory technical standards for the data standards and formats for financial instrument reference data and technical measures in relation to arrangements to be made by the European Securities and Markets Authority and competent authorities] for derivatives admitted to trading or traded on a trading venue, except fields 5 to 12 (the trading venue and issuerrelated fields).”
“Since the trading venue and issuer related fields are only applicable to trading venues when submitting reference data for derivatives but are not applicable for trading those contracts bilaterally outside of trading venues, ESMA considers it appropriate not to take into account these fields when determining whether an OTC derivative traded outside of a trading venue is to be considered TOTV.”
Council adopts new rules on prospectuses
The Council of the EU adopts the proposed Regulation that repeals and replaces the Prospectus Directive and the Prospectus Regulation. The new Regulation on prospectuses enters into force on the 20th day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The majority of its provisions apply from 24 months after the date of entry into force. Given that it is a Regulation, the new rules are binding and directly applicable in all EU Member States.
At a glance the new Regulation has the following key features
Author: Manfred Dietrich
On June 7, 2017, Norton Rose Fulbright opened an office in Luxembourg. The newly appointed team is led by Stéphane Braun, most recently founding partner of BS Avocats, who will be working alongside partners Manfred Dietrich (funds) and Raquel Guevara (tax). Manfred Dietrich joins as an investment fund and asset management partner. Manfred has over 16 years of experience in Luxembourg, which includes setting-up, restructuring, marketing, operation and liquidation of Luxembourg investment funds and vehicles as well as advising managers, depositaries and service providers in the funds sector on the structuring, setting-up and operation of their Luxembourg entities.
In this article Mandfred discusses recent market trends in the asset management industry in Luxembourg.
Over the course of the past few months, we have seen an continuous interest for specialised investment funds (SIFs), as well as an ongoing interest for reserved alternative investment funds (RAIFs), other non-regulated AIFs, typical private equity (and alike) structures, debt funds and structured UCITS.
Furthermore, several asset managers, financial institutions and insurance companies are discussing or have already foreseen the relocation or re-domiciliation of all or parts of their business (e.g. their foreign investment funds or management companies/AIFMs) to Luxembourg, particularly in the context of Brexit.
Even though unregulated AIFs (mainly limited partnerships and special limited partnerships for illiquid asset classes or, since its existence RAIFs in multiple legal forms) have gained significant market importance, the SIF as the traditional regulated fund vehicle with its long year market position and flexibility continues to be important in the range of fund products. This applies even more for liquid asset classes.
The RAIF, the flexible investment vehicle which is less than a year old (implemented in August 2016), continues to attract interest. Since implementation, 98 RAIF structures (official list at the companies register as at May 26, 2017) have been created in Luxembourg with a variety of different investment policies and for a number of purposes (time-to-market, incubation, private wealth management etc).
Besides this, for illiquid asset classes AIFs structured as unregulated partnerships (SCS or SCSp) see a steady increase in demand. Promoters and investors appreciate the legal framework allowing (to the extent the requirements are met) for the choice from the set-up as AIF only managed by a registered AIFM (and, for instance, not requiring a depositary) to the set-up as AIF managed by an authorised AIFM.
The Luxembourg market sees a further strengthening of its position as the recognised on-shore hub for all kinds of private equity, venture capital, real estate, infrastructure etc. (and alike) fund structures. In particular, professional and institutional investors from Europe and abroad trust the recognised, stable and flexible Luxembourg market and its fund products, whether regulated or not.
Debt and credit funds are also continuing their steady growth in Luxembourg thanks to the flexible legal and regulatory environment allowing them to implement all types of debt/credit strategies: mezzanine, distressed, including origination, etc.
Luxembourg is strengthening its position as a key domicile for structuring debt funds: over 70 per cent of the top 30 debt fund managers worldwide are present in Luxembourg.
Getting exposure to non-eligible assets via delta one notes is still an important trend, particularly for asset managers wishing to structure CTA type investment strategies in a UCITS format.
As a consequence of investor demand and the uncertainties as to the implementation of a third-country AIFM passport as well as the limitation of reverse solicitation capacities, numerous re-domiciliation or next product domiciliation projects in Luxembourg involving both regulated and non-regulated funds are under examination.
On the one side the possibility to transfer a foreign investment fund’s registered office to Luxembourg with the continuation of its legal personality is creating some strong interest for asset managers wishing to raise assets in the European Union. This process allows for a foreign fund to preserve its full corporate history, including its track record and it’s also worth noting that it is generally tax neutral.
On the other side Luxembourg offers, with its broad range of legal structures (e.g. the special limited partnership), appropriate solutions for next fund generation.
This possibility of re-domiciliation or shifting licensed business to Luxembourg may also be particularly relevant in the Brexit context for promoters wishing to keep the benefit of the passport for their funds. This is particularly important for asset managers. Several asset managers are currently discussing with the Luxembourg regulator the possible localisation of their UCITS management companies or regulated AIFM in Luxembourg.
Finally, there is ongoing activity regarding the new margin requirements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation as well as on the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation) and document disclosure requirements.
Expect the unexpected – cyber security – 2017 and beyond. Speech by Nausicaa Delfas on April 24, 2017.
FCA Finalised Guidance 16/5 – Guidance for firms outsourcing to the ‘cloud’ and other third-party IT services (July 2016).
The FSA report.
A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the appropriate regulator appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice.
Our aim is to help our clients understand the potential opportunities and challenges that COP25 may have on their business.
IMO 2020 is almost upon us. Readers are well aware of the impending switch to 0.5 percent fuel mandated by Annex VI of MARPOL which will cause an anticipated drop in HSFO demand, the potential hazards of new untested LSFO blends, the concerns around scrubber operations, the debate over open loop versus closed loop, and the myriad of other risks associated with the impending regulatory change.