Search a question

In EMIR, a CCP is defined as a legal person that interposes itself between the counterparties to the contracts traded on one or more financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer. EMIR defines clearing as the process of establishing positions, including the calculation of net obligations, and ensuring that financial instruments, cash, or both, are available to secure the exposures arising from those positions. The definition of a CCP, however, seems to be fulfilled also by entities that are not authorised as CCPs, e.g. by firms acting as prime brokers. Prime brokers typically interpose themselves between the counterparties on a matched principal trading (MPT) basis. When they do this for markets for which it is customary to margin positions, they determine a net position on the basis of which they ask margin from their counterparties. With these activities it could be argued that prime brokers fulfil the definition of a CCP under EMIR. Another example of this are investment firms that operate an OTF offering MPT for derivatives (explicitly allowed under Article 20(2) of MiFID II).

Questions:

1. Is an authorisation as a CCP pursuant to Article 14 of EMIR mandatory for any legal person established in the Union meeting the definition of a “CCP” and providing “clearing services” in respect of financial instruments, or is it limited to entities offering clearing in OTC derivatives subject to the EMIR clearing obligation and/or in exchange-traded financial instruments? In this regard, is the intent of the legal entity (to offer clearing services as a CCP) relevant?

2. Are there other constitutive elements (e.g. intent, type of clients (retail/wholesale), loss mutualisation, unilateral margin) of the definition of “CCP”, apart from the “interposition”, i.e. becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer, element (Article 2, point (1) of EMIR)?

3. What constitutes a “clearing service” in this context; should it be understood as “clearing” just as defined in Article 2, point (3) of EMIR or are there additional constitutive elements to be taken into account?

4. As regards the “interposition” element, where an investment firm (e.g. an OTF operator) executes transactions via matched principal trading (e.g. in accordance with Article 4(1), point (38), of MiFID II), do such matched principal trading transactions qualify as “interposition” (by the investment firm) for the purpose of the definition of a “CCP” pursuant to Article 2, point (1), of EMIR? If so, how would an investment firm (e.g. an OTF operator) using matched principal trading for the execution of transactions differ from a CCP?

5. Do CCP clearing services need to be performed by a separate legal entity from other regulated functions (e.g. the investment firm function), or can one legal entity perform CCP clearing services together with other activities (not linked to clearing) such as investment firm services?

The European Commission clarified in Q&A II.1 that, pursuant to Article 9(3) of SFDR, financial products tracking a Paris-aligned Benchmark (PAB) or a Climate Transition Benchmark (CTB) are deemed to make sustainable investments. Based on this clarification, can such financial products hold investments eligible under PAB/CTB requirements, which may, however, not qualify as sustainable investments within the meaning of Article 2(17) of SFDR under the relevant financial market participant’s own methodology?
Can the clarification provided by Q&A II.1 also be extended to:
- Financial products disclosing under Article 9(3) of SFDR that apply all requirements of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1818 for PABs/CTBs, but that do not passively track such indices?
- Other types of financial products that have a reduction in carbon emissions as their objective and disclose under Article 9(3) of SFDR (i.e. without tracking a PAB/CTB or applying the requirements applicable to these indices)?

In the case where a financial market participant, such as a fund manager (delegator), delegates the portfolio management of a fund to an investment firm (delegatee), is the delegatee investment firm subject to the same SFDR disclosure obligations for the portfolio management it performs for that fund as when it deals with discretionary portfolio management mandates with end investors?

In the case of exchange-traded derivatives (‘ETDs’), can reporting counterparties (which are in this case, their own ERRs) submit a single consolidated Errors and Omissions Notification?

Can derivatives settled in stablecoins—namely asset-referenced tokens or electronic money tokens as defined in Article 3(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) - be classified as financial instruments under Section C of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU? More specifically, can such instruments be deemed to meet the criterion of derivatives settled in cash?

In addition, does EU legislation permit the use of unauthorised stablecoins – namely asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens that do not comply with Titles III and IV of MiCA – for the settlement of derivatives?