Search a question

What are the respective responsibilities of offerors, persons seeking admission to trading, operators of trading platforms and other CASPs mentioned in Article 66(3) of MiCA with regard to white papers for crypto-assets other than ARTs and EMTs that were admitted to trading prior to 30 December 2024?

In light of the first subparagraph of Article 16(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II), as well as Article 2(3) and Article 30(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565, can it be affirmed that where a management company has delegated to an entity the performance of crucial elements of the marketing of UCITS funds, including their registration and listing for marketing purposes, the activity of that entity in entering into brokerage and distribution agreements with third-party intermediaries for the purpose of marketing such funds constitutes outsourcing of a critical and important function?

Furthermore, and in the light of the EBA Guidelines on Outsourcing Arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02), to what extent does the principle of proportionality guide the assessment carried out during the risk evaluation of such outsourcing arrangements? In particular, do factors such as the continuity and duration of the agreement with third-party intermediaries, the scope and materiality of the delegated tasks, and the frequency and regularity of such delegation have an impact on whether the relationship should be qualified as the outsourcing of a critical or important function under the above-mentioned instruments?

We are currently exploring the possibility of presenting future performance in percentage terms within our robo-advisory application. The app provides automated investment recommendations based on client profiling and risk tolerance, and may in the future include visual projections of potential returns.

These projections would be expressed as percentages, clearly labeled as hypothetical, and accompanied by appropriate disclaimers and risk warnings. The format would follow the structure and methodology of performance scenarios as outlined in Annex IV of the PRIIPs Regulation.

In this context, we would like to clarify:

Is it permissible to present future performance in percentage terms if the format aligns with the performance scenarios described in PRIIPs Annex IV?
Would such a presentation be compliant with Article 44 of MiFID II, particularly in digital interfaces?

It follows from the first subparagraph of Article 106(1) of the UCITS Directive that any person approved in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC, performing in a UCITS, or in an undertaking contributing towards its business activity, the statutory audit referred to in Article 51 of Directive 78/660/EEC, Article 37 of Directive 83/349/EEC or Article 73 of this Directive or any other statutory task, shall have a duty to report promptly to the competent authorities any fact or decision concerning that undertaking of which he has become aware while carrying out that task and which is liable to bring about any of the following: (a) a material breach of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions which lay down the conditions governing authorisation or which specifically govern pursuit of the activities of UCITS or undertakings contributing towards their business activity; (b) the impairment of the continuous functioning of the UCITS or an undertaking contributing towards its business activity; or (c) a refusal to certify the accounts or the expression of reservations.

Further, it follows from the second subparagraph of that Article that that person shall have a duty to report any facts and decisions of which he becomes aware in the course of carrying out a task as described in point (a) in an undertaking having close links resulting from a control relationship with the UCITS or an undertaking contributing towards its business activity, within which he is carrying out that task.

Finally, the following is set out in Article 12(1) of the Audit Regulation (Regulation 537/2014): “Statutory auditors or audit firms shall also have a duty to report any information referred to in points (a) (b) or (c) of the first subparagraph of which they become aware in the course of carrying out the statutory audit of an undertaking having close links with the public-interest entity for which they are also carrying out the statutory audit. For the purposes of this Article, ‘close links’ shall have the meaning assigned to that term in point (38) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.“
- In cases where a UCITS management company and its parent undertaking do not have the same auditor and are located in different Member States, what are the reporting obligations of the auditor of the parent undertaking towards national competent authorities (in both Member States) in terms of findings concerning the subsidiary that could meet the aforementioned conditions set out in points (a) to (c), e.g. bringing about a material breach of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions which lay down the conditions governing authorisation or which specifically govern pursuit of the activities of UCITS or undertakings contributing towards their business activity? More specifically:
- If ‘that person’ expands the reporting obligation in the first sub-paragraph, does that also apply where a UCITS management company and its parent undertaking are located in different Member States?
- If “that person” expands the reporting obligation in the first subparagraph, is the parent company’s auditor required to report to the UCITS management company’s home NCA or to the NCA where the parent company is domiciled?
- How should the notion of ‘undertaking contributing towards its [a UCITS management company’s] business activity’ (as set out in the UCITS Directive) be understood? For instance, can a company, that is not an UCITS management company, under an agreement with an asset management company be considered to be as such a company, if it advises customers to invest in UCITS managed by the UCITS management company?
- How should the notion of ‘close links resulting from a control relationship’ (as set out in the UCITS Directive) between a management company on the one side, and its subsidiary or parent undertaking on the other side, be understood?
- How should the notion of ‘undertaking contributing towards its [a UCITS Management Company’s] business activity’ (as set out in the UCITS Directive) be understood?

It follows from Article 1(9)(b) and Article 2(4)(b) AIFMD II that the AIFM or UCITS management company shall ensure that the performance of the functions in Annex I or II of the respective directives, as well as the provision of the services referred to in Articles 6(4) or 6(3), complies with the requirements of AIFMD II. Considering that portfolio management and risk management may be delegated to entities located in the EU or to regulated entities located in third countries, to which extent are delegates or subdelegates of AIFMs or UCITS management companies subject to the AIFMD and UCITS Directive?