Search a question

The question refers to the interpretation of the meaning of indirect holdings of other financial instruments (Article 13) for the purpose of aggregated notification (Article 13a).
National Competent Authorities request that the European Commission clarify the meaning of ‘indirect holding’ in the context of financial instruments other than shares (i.e., securities providing voting rights).
The TD explicitly specifies, under Article 10, the different cases of indirect holdings of voting rights that are subject to notification.
In the case of financial instruments not granting voting rights (Article 13 and its reference in Article 13a) there is, however, no explicit definition of those cases of indirect holdings; and no explicit link to Article 10.
National Competent Authorities have raised questions about the precise definition of indirect holdings in this context—specifically, whether a full “look‑through” approach must always be applied, or whether the limitation to the look‑through approach set out in paragraph 10(e) also applies to financial instruments. In particular, it is unclear whether financial instruments held by a third party in its own name but on behalf of the person or entity concerned—such as those described in paragraph 10(g)—should be excluded.

Is a prospectus required under Article 1(5)(ba) of the Prospectus Regulation (PR) for reverse acquisitions?

Unlike Article 1(6b) of the PR, which requires a prospectus for reverse acquisitions within the meaning of paragraph B19 of IFRS 3, Business Combinations, Article 1(5)(ba) of the PR does not explicitly address this issue.

How should the due diligence requirements set out in Article 5(2) of the ESCPR be applied by CSPs?

Under the MiCA framework, can a group structure be set up whereby a non-regulated holding acts as the principal commercial counterparty towards customers (including entering into customer contracts, maintaining customer relationships, and issuing invoices), while a licensed Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) within the same group (daughter company) performs and executes the regulated crypto-asset services?
In such a structure, would it be permissible for the CASP to provide the regulated services without directly contracting with, or invoicing, the end customers, provided that all MiCA requirements (including governance, outsourcing, conflict of interest, and conduct of business rules) are appropriately met?

Do subscription rights fall under the exemptions in Article 1(5)(a) and (ba) of the Prospectus Regulation?