Search a question

If the UCITS attestation transmitted to the competent authority of the home Member State lists all the existing investment compartments of a UCITS, should the UCITS undertake a notification procedure for all the investment compartments it intends to market in a Member State?

Should UCITS that wish to market several investment compartments of the same UCITS undertake different notification procedures via their competent authority?

Should UCITS that wish to market new investment compartments in a Member State where they are already notified for marketing for other existing investment compartments undertake a new notification procedure via their competent authority?

Question a: Articles 17 and 18 of the TD require issuers to ensure that all the facilities and information necessary to enable shareholders / debt securities holders to exercise their rights are available in the home Member State. Each issuer is also required to designate as its agent a financial institution through which shareholders / debt securities holders may exercise their financial rights.
Must the issuer appoint as its agent a financial institution domiciled in the home Member State? Or is it sufficient to appoint a financial institution domiciled in another Member State?

Question b: Before the TD was adopted, similar provisions were included in Articles 65(2)(c) and 78(2)(b) of the Directive 2001/34/EC. However, there was an exemption for issuers providing financial services: “In particular, it [the issuer] must: (...) designate as its agent a financial institution through which holders of debt securities may exercise their financial rights, unless the under-taking itself provides financial services.”
Does the TD require issuers who are financial institutions to appoint as an agent a financial institution other than itself?

Company A is a major shareholder in an issuer X whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market. Company B, which previously does not hold any shares or voting rights in X, ac-quires control in company A. Should B notify its holdings in issuer X even though the holdings of A in issuer X remain the same?