Should the minimum percentage of liquid assets referred to in Annex II of the ELTIF Delegated Regulation solely comprise, as per Article 5(5) point b) of the ELTIF Delegated Regulation, the UCITS eligible assets, or should it also include, as it is the case for the purpose of the denominator of the percentage referred to in Article 18(2) point (d), the expected cash flow, forecasted on a prudent basis over 12 months?

Are the assets and the cash borrowing position of the “intermediary entities”, as referred to in recital 12 of the ELTIF Regulation, included when calculating the investment limit and the other limits laid down in Article 13 and Article 16(1) of the ELTIF Regulation?

Can an ELTIF acquire equity or debt instruments issued by another collective investment scheme (CIS) or grant loans to another CIS, i.e. can CISs qualify as qualifying portfolio undertaking as referred to in points a), b) and c) of Article 10(1) of the ELTIF Regulation? If yes, would the conditions set under article 11 or under article 10(1)d) apply? And would the look-through approach referred to in Article 10(2) of the ELTIF Regulation apply in this case, in particular for debt instruments referred to in Article 10(1)(b) of that Regulation issued by CIS, if CIS can qualify as “qualifying portfolio undertaking as referred to in Article 11?

The reading of several NCAs of the article 23 of ELTIF Regulation is that, as far as prospectus EU legal framework is concerned (Directive 2003/71 and Regulation 809/2004), solely the provisions of such framework that are explicitly mentioned by the ELTIF Regulation shall be applied.
Hence, since the provision concerning the prospectus authorization is not quoted in the ELTIF Regulation, such an authorization is not due for the prospectus of an ELTIF.

The prospectus of the ELTIF is however scrutinized by these NCAs before its publication; such scrutiny is conducted in the context of the marketing procedure laid down in Article 31(4) of the ELTIF Regulation (marketing of units or shares of ELTIFs).

It is however unclear whether a different approach is adopted by other Member States, pursuant to which the authorization of the prospectus is put in place.

The difference between the two approaches is also relevant in the context of the update of the information included in the prospectus. Indeed, at the time of the update of the prospectus:

• if the authorization is not due, the updated version of the prospectus can be published and the NCA can put in place an ex post supervision;
• if the authorization is due, the updated version of the prospectus shall be authorized by the NCA before being published.

Which of these two possible legal interpretations should be considered as the correct one?