Article 32a, paragraph 3, third sub-paragraph of Directive (EU) 2011/61/EU (as modified by CBDF Directive) states the following: "(…) For a period of 36 months from the date referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the AIFM shall not engage in pre-marketing of units or shares of the EU AIFs referred to in the notification, or in respect of similar investment strategies or investment ideas, in the Member State identified in the notification referred to in paragraph 2.” How should "similar investment strategies or investment ideas" be interpreted?

For the purpose of preparing the Register of ICT Supplier Information (RoI) on a sub-consolidated basis, is it necessary to include within the different templates (ref. “B_XX.XX.XXX”) the information pertaining to both the Contractual Agreements that the Entity signs and those that it uses?
Specifically then, the “financial entity maintaining the register of information” is to be considered corresponding to the "entity signing the contractual arrangement" and the "financial entity making use of the ICT service(s)"?

According to the new article 7a(1) EMIR (as issued by (EU) 2024/2987) the obligation to hold an active account according to the second condition is that a Financial counterparty subject to clearing obligation exceeds the clearing threshold in any of the categories of derivative contracts referred to in paragraph 6 of this Article, in an individual category listed in that paragraph or on aggregate across all categories listed in that paragraph.

Is it only cleared paragraph 6 contracts that should be measured against the clearing threshold according to the second condition? If so, should contracts cleared with EU CCP’s, such as Nasdaq Nordiq or Eurex, or third country markets for which there are equivalence decisions granted, such as Chicago Mecantile Exchange (CME) which is relevant for STIR contracts, be excluded?

According to Article 4(5) of MiCA, crypto-asset transfer services are exempt from requiring CASP authorization if they are linked to public offerings that qualify as exempt under Article 4(3) (with exceptions). However, the wording leaves room for interpretation as to whether it is mandatory for issuers to either be authorized or subcontract with a CASP for transfer services in the case of non-exempt public offerings. To provide greater legal certainty for the primary market, it would be helpful to clarify the following:

Can the issuer itself conduct a public offering of a crypto-asset other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens, transferring the tokens directly from the issuance smart contract to a personal wallet, without being required to obtain CASP authorization or subcontract custody and transfer services under an authorized CASP, even if the offering does not fall under the exemptions of Article 4(3) as referenced in Article 4(5)?

Are electronic communications or telephone conversations limited to the provision of information about different investment alternatives subject to the record keeping obligation under article 16(7) of MiFID II when there is no possibility to enter into a trade during that interaction?