Article 31 Withdrawal of registration of an administrator located in a third country
1. ESMA shall withdraw the registration of an administrator located in a third country by removing that administrator from the register referred to in Article 36 where it has well-founded reasons, based on documented evidence, that the administrator: (a) is acting in a manner which is clearly prejudicial to the interests of the users of its benchmarks or the orderly functioning of markets; or (b) has seriously infringed the national legislation in the third country or other provisions applicable to it in the third country and on the basis of which the Commission has adopted the implementing decision in accordance with Article 30(2) or (3). 2. ESMA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) ESMA has referred the matter to the competent authority of the third country and that competent authority has not taken the appropriate measures needed to protect investors and the orderly functioning of the markets in the Union, or has failed to demonstrate that the administrator concerned complies with the requirements applicable to it in the third country; (b) ESMA has informed the competent authority of the third country of its intention to withdraw the registration of the administrator, at least 30 days before the withdrawal. 3. ESMA shall inform the other competent authorities of any measure adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 without delay and shall publish its decision on its website.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 31 Withdrawal of registration of an administrator located in a third country):
2. ESMA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) ESMA has referred the matter to the competent authority of the third country and that competent authority has not taken the appropriate measures needed to protect investors and the orderly functioning of the markets in the Union, or has failed to demonstrate that the administrator concerned complies with the requirements applicable to it in the third country; (b) ESMA has informed the competent authority of the third country of its intention to withdraw the registration of the administrator, at least 30 days before the withdrawal. 3. ESMA shall inform the other competent authorities of any measure adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 without delay and shall publish its decision on its website.
Article 32 Recognition of an administrator located in a third country
1. Until such time as an equivalence decision in accordance with Article 30(2) or (3) is adopted, a benchmark provided by an administrator located in a third country may be used by supervised entities in the Union provided that the administrator acquires prior recognition by the competent authority of its Member State of reference in accordance with this Article. 2. An administrator located in a third country intending to obtain prior recognition as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with the requirements established in this Regulation, excluding Article 11(4) and Articles 16, 20, 21 and 23. The administrator may fulfil that condition by applying the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for PRAs, as applicable, provided that such application is equivalent to compliance with the requirements established in this Regulation, excluding Article 11(4), and Articles 16, 20, 21 and 23. For the purposes of determining whether the condition referred to in the first subparagraph is fulfilled, and in order to assess compliance with the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for PRAs, as applicable, the competent authority of the Member State of reference may rely on an assessment by an independent external auditor or, where the administrator located in a third country is subject to supervision, on the certification provided by the competent authority of the third country where the administrator is located. If, and to the extent that, an administrator is able to demonstrate that a benchmark it provides is a regulated-data benchmark or a commodity benchmark that is not based on submissions by contributors the majority of which are supervised entities, there shall be no obligation on the administrator to comply with requirements not applicable to the provision of regulated-data benchmarks and of commodity benchmarks as provided for in Article 17 and Article 19(1) respectively. 3. An administrator located in a third country intending to obtain prior recognition as referred to in paragraph 1 shall have a legal representative established in its Member State of reference. The legal representative shall be a natural or legal person located in the Union, and which, expressly appointed by the administrator located in a third country, acts on behalf of such administrator vis-à-vis the authorities and any other person in the Union with regard to the administrator's obligations under this Regulation. The legal representative shall perform the oversight function relating to the provision of benchmarks performed by the administrator under this Regulation together with the administrator and, in that respect, shall be accountable to the competent authority of the Member State of reference. 4. The Member State of reference of an administrator located in a third country shall be determined as follows: (a) where an administrator is part of a group that contains one supervised entity located in the Union, the Member State of reference shall be the Member State where that supervised entity is located. Such supervised entity shall be appointed as the legal representative for the purposes of paragraph 3; (b) if point (a) does not apply, where an administrator is part of a group that contains more than one supervised entity located in the Union, the Member State of reference shall be the Member State where the highest number of supervised entities are located or, in the event that there is an equal number of supervised entities, the Member State of reference shall be the one where the value of financial instruments, financial contracts or investment funds that reference the benchmark is highest. One of the supervised entities located in the Member State of reference determined pursuant to this point shall be appointed as the legal representative for the purposes of paragraph 3; (c) if neither point (a) nor (b) of this paragraph applies, where one or more benchmarks provided by the administrator are used as a reference for financial instruments admitted to trading in a trading venue as defined in point (24) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU in one or more Member States, the Member State of reference shall be the Member State where the financial instrument referencing any of those benchmarks was admitted to trading or traded on a trading venue for the first time and is still traded. If the relevant financial instruments were admitted to trading or traded for the first time simultaneously on trading venues in different Member States, and are still traded, the Member State of reference shall be the one where the value of financial instruments, financial contracts or investment funds that reference the benchmark is highest; (d) if points (a), (b) and (c) do not apply, where one or more benchmarks provided by the administrator are used by supervised entities in more than one Member State, the Member State of reference shall be the Member State where the highest number of such supervised entities are located or, in the event that there is an equal number of supervised entities, the Member State of reference shall be the one where the value of financial instruments, financial contracts or investment funds that reference the benchmark is highest; (e) if points (a), (b), (c) and (d) do not apply and if the administrator enters into an agreement consenting to the use of a benchmark it provides with a supervised entity, the Member State of reference shall be the Member State where such supervised entity is located. 5. An administrator located in a third country intending to obtain prior recognition as referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply for recognition with the competent authority of its Member State of reference. The applicant administrator shall provide all information necessary to satisfy the competent authority that it has established, at the time of recognition, all the necessary arrangements to meet the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 and shall provide the list of its actual or prospective benchmarks which may be used in the Union and shall, where applicable, indicate the competent authority responsible for its supervision in the third country. Within 90 working days of receipt of the application referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the competent authority shall verify that the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are fulfilled. If the competent authority considers that the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are not fulfilled, it shall refuse the recognition request and set out the reasons for that refusal. In addition, no recognition shall be granted unless the following additional conditions are fulfilled: (a) where an administrator located in a third country is subject to supervision, an appropriate cooperation arrangement is in place between the competent authority of the Member State of reference and the competent authority of the third country where the administrator is located, in compliance with the regulatory technical standards adopted pursuant to Article 30(5), in order to ensure an efficient exchange of information that allows the competent authority to carry out its duties in accordance with this Regulation; (b) the effective exercise by the competent authority of its supervisory functions under this Regulation is neither prevented by the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the third country where the administrator is located, nor, where applicable, by limitations in the supervisory and investigatory powers of that third country's supervisory authority. 6. In the event that the competent authority of the Member State of reference considers that an administrator located in a third country provides a benchmark that fulfils the conditions of a significant or non-significant benchmark, as provided for in Articles 24 and 26 respectively, it shall, without undue delay, notify ESMA thereof. It shall support such assessment with the information provided by the administrator in the relevant application for recognition. Within one month of receipt of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph, ESMA shall issue advice to the competent authority about the type of the benchmark and the requirements applicable to its provision, as provided for in Articles 24, 25 and 26. The advice may, in particular, address whether ESMA considers that the conditions for such type are fulfilled on the basis of the information provided by the administrator in the application for recognition. The period of time referred to in paragraph 5 shall be suspended from the date on which the notification is received by ESMA, until such time as ESMA issues advice in accordance with this paragraph. If the competent authority of the Member State of reference proposes to grant recognition contrary to ESMA's advice referred to in the second subparagraph, it shall inform ESMA thereof, stating its reasons. ESMA shall publish the fact that the competent authority does not comply or intend to comply with that advice. ESMA may also decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish the reasons provided by the competent authority for not complying with that advice. The competent authority concerned shall receive advance notice of such publication. 7. The competent authority of the Member State of reference shall notify ESMA of any decision to recognise an administrator located in a third country within five working days, along with the list of the benchmarks provided by the administrator which may be used in the Union and, where applicable, the competent authority responsible for its supervision in the third country. 8. The competent authority of the Member State of reference shall suspend or, where appropriate, withdraw the recognition granted in accordance with paragraph 5 if it has well-founded reasons, based on documented evidence, to consider that the administrator is acting in a manner which is clearly prejudicial to the interests of users of its benchmarks or the orderly functioning of markets or the administrator has seriously infringed the relevant requirements set out in this Regulation, or that the administrator made false statements or used any other irregular means to obtain the recognition. 9. ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the form and content of the application referred to in paragraph 5 and, in particular, the presentation of the information required in paragraph 6. In the event that such draft regulatory technical standards are developed, ESMA shall submit them to the Commission. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 32 Recognition of an administrator located in a third country):
1. Until such time as an equivalence decision is adopted in accordance with Article 30(2) and (3), a benchmark provided by an administrator located in a third country may be used by supervised entities in the Union, provided that that administrator acquires prior recognition by ESMA in accordance with this Article. 2. An administrator located in a third country intending to obtain prior recognition as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall comply with the requirements established in this Regulation, excluding Article 11(4) and Articles 16, 20, 21 and 23. The administrator may fulfil that condition by applying the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for PRAs, as applicable, provided that such application is equivalent to compliance with the requirements established in this Regulation, excluding Article 11(4), and Articles 16, 20, 21 and 23. To determine whether the condition referred to in the first subparagraph is fulfilled and to assess compliance with the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for PRAs, as applicable, ESMA may take into account an assessment by an independent external auditor or, a certification provided by the competent authority of the administrator in the third country where the administrator is located. If, and to the extent that, an administrator is able to demonstrate that a benchmark it provides is a regulated-data benchmark or a commodity benchmark that is not based on submissions by contributors the majority of which are supervised entities, there shall be no obligation on the administrator to comply with requirements not applicable to the provision of regulated-data benchmarks and of commodity benchmarks as provided for in Article 17 and Article 19(1) respectively. 3. An administrator located in a third country intending to obtain prior recognition as referred to in paragraph 1 shall have a legal representative. The legal representative shall be a natural or legal person located in the Union and expressly appointed by that administrator to act on behalf of that administrator with regard to the administrator’s obligations under this Regulation. The legal representative shall, together with the administrator, perform the oversight function relating to the provision of benchmarks performed by the administrator under this Regulation and, in that respect, be accountable to ESMA. 5. An administrator located in a third country intending to obtain prior recognition as referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply for recognition with ESMA. The applicant administrator shall provide all information necessary to satisfy ESMA that it has established, at the time of recognition, all the necessary arrangements to meet the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 and shall provide the list of its actual or prospective benchmarks which are intended for use in the Union and shall, where applicable, indicate the competent authority in the third country responsible for its supervision. Within 90 working days of receipt of the application referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, ESMA shall verify that the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 are fulfilled. Where ESMA considers that the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 are not fulfilled, it shall refuse the recognition request and set out the reasons for that refusal. In addition, no recognition shall be granted unless the following additional conditions are fulfilled: (a) where an administrator located in a third country is subject to supervision, an appropriate cooperation arrangement is in place between ESMA and the competent authority of the third country where the administrator is located, in compliance with the regulatory technical standards adopted pursuant to Article 30(5), to ensure an efficient exchange of information that enables the competent authority of that third country to carry out its duties in accordance with this Regulation; (b) the effective exercise by ESMA of its supervisory functions under this Regulation is neither prevented by the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the third country where the administrator is located, nor, where applicable, by limitations in the supervisory and investigatory powers of that third country’s competent authority. 9. ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to determine the form and content of the application referred to in paragraph 5 and, in particular, the presentation of the information required in paragraph 6. In the event that such draft regulatory technical standards are developed, ESMA shall submit them to the Commission. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 33 Endorsement of benchmarks provided in a third country
1. An administrator located in the Union and authorised or registered in accordance with Article 34, or any other supervised entity located in the Union with a clear and well-defined role within the control or accountability framework of a third country administrator, which is able to monitor effectively the provision of a benchmark, may apply to the relevant competent authority to endorse a benchmark or a family of benchmarks provided in a third country for their use in the Union, provided that all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity has verified and is able to demonstrate on an on-going basis to its competent authority that the provision of the benchmark or family of benchmarks to be endorsed fulfils, on a mandatory or on a voluntary basis, requirements which are at least as stringent as the requirements of this Regulation; (b) the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity has the necessary expertise to monitor effectively the activity of the provision of a benchmark in a third country and to manage the associated risks; (c) there is an objective reason to provide the benchmark or family of benchmarks in a third country and for said benchmark or family of benchmarks to be endorsed for their use in the Union. For the purpose of point (a), when assessing whether the provision of the benchmark or family of benchmarks to be endorsed fulfils requirements which are at least as stringent as the requirements of this Regulation, the competent authority may take into account whether the compliance of the provision of the benchmark or family of benchmarks with the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for PRAs, as applicable, would be equivalent to compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. 2. An administrator or other supervised entity that makes an application for endorsement as referred to in paragraph 1 shall provide all information necessary to satisfy the competent authority that, at the time of application, all the conditions referred to in that paragraph are fulfilled. 3. Within 90 working days of receipt of the application for endorsement referred to in paragraph 1, the relevant competent authority shall examine the application and adopt a decision either to authorise the endorsement or to refuse it. An endorsed benchmark or an endorsed family of benchmarks shall be notified by the competent authority to ESMA. 4. An endorsed benchmark or an endorsed family of benchmarks shall be considered to be a benchmark or family of benchmarks provided by the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity. The endorsing administrator or other supervised entity shall not use the endorsement with the intention of avoiding the requirements of this Regulation. 5. An administrator or other supervised entity that has endorsed a benchmark or a family of benchmarks provided in a third country shall remain fully responsible for such a benchmark or family of benchmarks and for compliance with the obligations under this Regulation. 6. Where the competent authority of the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity has well-founded reasons to consider that the conditions laid down under paragraph 1 of this Article are no longer fulfilled, it shall have the power to require the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity to cease the endorsement and shall inform ESMA thereof. Article 28 shall apply in case of cessation of the endorsement. 7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 concerning measures to determine the conditions under which the relevant competent authorities may assess whether there is an objective reason for the provision of a benchmark or family of benchmarks in a third country and their endorsement for their use in the Union. The Commission shall take into account elements such as the specificities of the underlying market or economic reality the benchmark intends to measure, the need for proximity of the provision of the benchmark to such market or economic reality, the need for proximity of the provision of the benchmark to contributors, the material availability of input data due to different time zones, and specific skills required in the provision of the benchmark.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 33 Endorsement of benchmarks provided in a third country):
For the purpose of point (a), when assessing whether the provision of the benchmark or family of benchmarks to be endorsed fulfils requirements which are at least as stringent as the requirements of this Regulation, the competent authority may take into account whether the compliance of the provision of the benchmark or family of benchmarks with the IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks or the IOSCO principles for PRAs, as applicable, would be equivalent to compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. 2. An administrator or other supervised entity that makes an application for endorsement as referred to in paragraph 1 shall provide all information necessary to satisfy the competent authority that, at the time of application, all the conditions referred to in that paragraph are fulfilled. 3. Within 90 working days of receipt of the application for endorsement referred to in paragraph 1, the relevant competent authority shall examine the application and adopt a decision either to authorise the endorsement or to refuse it. An endorsed benchmark or an endorsed family of benchmarks shall be notified by the competent authority to ESMA. 4. An endorsed benchmark or an endorsed family of benchmarks shall be considered to be a benchmark or family of benchmarks provided by the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity. The endorsing administrator or other supervised entity shall not use the endorsement with the intention of avoiding the requirements of this Regulation. 5. An administrator or other supervised entity that has endorsed a benchmark or a family of benchmarks provided in a third country shall remain fully responsible for such a benchmark or family of benchmarks and for compliance with the obligations under this Regulation. 6. Where the competent authority of the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity has well-founded reasons to consider that the conditions laid down under paragraph 1 of this Article are no longer fulfilled, it shall have the power to require the endorsing administrator or other supervised entity to cease the endorsement and shall inform ESMA thereof. Article 28 shall apply in case of cessation of the endorsement. 7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 concerning measures to determine the conditions under which the relevant competent authorities may assess whether there is an objective reason for the provision of a benchmark or family of benchmarks in a third country and their endorsement for their use in the Union. The Commission shall take into account elements such as the specificities of the underlying market or economic reality the benchmark intends to measure, the need for proximity of the provision of the benchmark to such market or economic reality, the need for proximity of the provision of the benchmark to contributors, the material availability of input data due to different time zones, and specific skills required in the provision of the benchmark.
Article 34 Authorisation and registration of an administrator
1. A natural or legal person located in the Union that intends to act as an administrator shall apply to the competent authority designated under Article 40 of the Member State in which that person is located in order to receive: (a) authorisation if it provides or intends to provide indices which are used or intended to be used as benchmarks within the meaning of this Regulation; (b) registration if it is a supervised entity, other than an administrator, that provides or intends to provide indices which are used or intended to be used as benchmarks within the meaning of this Regulation, on condition that the activity of provision of a benchmark is not prevented by the sectoral discipline applying to the supervised entity and that none of the indices provided would qualify as a critical benchmark; or (c) registration if it provides or intends to provide only indices which would qualify as non-significant benchmarks. 2. An authorised or registered administrator shall comply at all times with the conditions laid down in this Regulation and shall notify the competent authority of any material changes thereof. 3. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made within 30 working days of any agreement entered into by a supervised entity to use an index provided by the applicant as a reference to a financial instrument or financial contract or to measure the performance of an investment fund. 4. The applicant shall provide all information necessary to satisfy the competent authority that the applicant has established, at the time of authorisation or registration, all the necessary arrangements to meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation. 5. Within 15 working days of receipt of the application, the relevant competent authority shall assess whether the application is complete and shall notify the applicant accordingly. If the application is incomplete, the applicant shall submit the additional information required by the relevant competent authority. The time limit referred to in this paragraph shall apply from the date on which such additional information is provided by the applicant. 6. The relevant competent authority shall: (a) examine the application for authorisation and adopt a decision to authorise or refuse to authorise the applicant within four months of receipt of a complete application; (b) examine the application for registration and adopt a decision to register or refuse to register the applicant within 45 working days of receipt of a complete application. Within five working days of the adoption of a decision referred to in the first subparagraph, the competent authority shall notify it to the applicant. Where the competent authority refuses to authorise or to register the applicant, it shall give reasons for its decision. 7. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of any decision to authorise or to register an applicant within five working days of the date of adoption of said decision. 8. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further the information to be provided in the application for authorisation and in the application for registration, taking into account that authorisation and registration are distinct processes where authorisation requires a more extensive assessment of the administrator's application, the principle of proportionality, the nature of the supervised entities applying for registration under point (b) of paragraph 1 and the costs to the applicants and competent authorities. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 34 Authorisation and registration of an administrator):
2. An authorised or registered administrator shall comply at all times with the conditions laid down in this Regulation and shall notify the competent authority of any material changes thereof. 3. The application referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made within 30 working days of any agreement entered into by a supervised entity to use an index provided by the applicant as a reference to a financial instrument or financial contract or to measure the performance of an investment fund. 4. The applicant shall provide all information necessary to satisfy the competent authority that the applicant has established, at the time of authorisation or registration, all the necessary arrangements to meet the requirements laid down in this Regulation. 5. Within 15 working days of receipt of the application, the relevant competent authority shall assess whether the application is complete and shall notify the applicant accordingly. If the application is incomplete, the applicant shall submit the additional information required by the relevant competent authority. The time limit referred to in this paragraph shall apply from the date on which such additional information is provided by the applicant. 6. The relevant competent authority shall: (a) examine the application for authorisation and adopt a decision to authorise or refuse to authorise the applicant within four months of receipt of a complete application; (b) examine the application for registration and adopt a decision to register or refuse to register the applicant within 45 working days of receipt of a complete application. Within five working days of the adoption of a decision referred to in the first subparagraph, the competent authority shall notify it to the applicant. Where the competent authority refuses to authorise or to register the applicant, it shall give reasons for its decision. 7. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of any decision to authorise or to register an applicant within five working days of the date of adoption of said decision. 8. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further the information to be provided in the application for authorisation and in the application for registration, taking into account that authorisation and registration are distinct processes where authorisation requires a more extensive assessment of the administrator's application, the principle of proportionality, the nature of the supervised entities applying for registration under point (b) of paragraph 1 and the costs to the applicants and competent authorities. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 1 April 2017. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 35 Withdrawal or suspension of authorisation or registration
1. A competent authority may withdraw or suspend the authorisation or registration of an administrator where the administrator: (a) expressly renounces the authorisation or registration or has provided no benchmarks for the preceding 12 months; (b) has obtained the authorisation or registration, or has endorsed a benchmark, by making false statements or by any other irregular means; (c) no longer meets the conditions under which it was authorised or registered; or (d) has seriously or repeatedly infringed the provisions of this Regulation. 2. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of its decision within five working days of the adoption of said decision. ESMA shall promptly update the register provided for in Article 36. 3. Following the adoption of a decision to suspend the authorisation or registration of an administrator, and where cessation of the benchmark would result in a force majeure event, or frustrate or otherwise breach the terms of any financial contract or financial instrument, or the rules of any investment fund, which references that benchmark, as specified in the delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 51(6), the provision of the benchmark in question may be permitted by the relevant competent authority of the Member State where the administrator is located until the decision of suspension has been withdrawn. During that period of time, the use of such benchmark by supervised entities shall be permitted only for financial contracts, financial instruments and investment funds that already reference the benchmark. 4. Following the adoption of a decision to withdraw the authorisation or registration of an administrator, Article 28(2) shall apply.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 35 Withdrawal or suspension of authorisation or registration):
2. The competent authority shall notify ESMA of its decision within five working days of the adoption of said decision. ESMA shall promptly update the register provided for in Article 36. 3. Following the adoption of a decision to suspend the authorisation or registration of an administrator, and where cessation of the benchmark would result in a force majeure event, or frustrate or otherwise breach the terms of any financial contract or financial instrument, or the rules of any investment fund, which references that benchmark, as specified in the delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 51(6), the provision of the benchmark in question may be permitted by the relevant competent authority of the Member State where the administrator is located until the decision of suspension has been withdrawn. During that period of time, the use of such benchmark by supervised entities shall be permitted only for financial contracts, financial instruments and investment funds that already reference the benchmark. 4. Following the adoption of a decision to withdraw the authorisation or registration of an administrator, Article 28(2) shall apply.
Article 36 Register of administrators and benchmarks
1. ESMA shall establish and maintain a public register that contains the following information: (a) the identities of the administrators authorised or registered pursuant to Article 34 and the competent authorities responsible for the supervision thereof; (b) the identities of administrators that comply with the conditions laid down in Article 30(1), the list of benchmarks referred to in point (c) of Article 30(1) and the third country competent authorities responsible for the supervision thereof; (c) the identities of the administrators that acquired recognition in accordance with Article 32, the list of benchmarks referred to in Article 32(7) and, where applicable, the third country competent authorities responsible for the supervision thereof; (d) the benchmarks that are endorsed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 33, the identities of their administrators, and the identities of the endorsing administrators or endorsing supervised entities. 2. The register referred to in paragraph 1 shall be publicly accessible on the website of ESMA and shall be updated promptly, as necessary.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 36 Register of administrators and benchmarks):
2. The register referred to in paragraph 1 shall be publicly accessible on the website of ESMA and shall be updated promptly, as necessary.
Article 37 Delegation of tasks between competent authorities
1. In accordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, a competent authority may delegate its tasks under this Regulation to the competent authority of another Member State with its prior consent. The competent authorities shall notify ESMA of any proposed delegation 60 days prior to such delegation taking effect. 2. A competent authority may delegate some of its tasks under this Regulation to ESMA, subject to the agreement of ESMA. 3. ESMA shall notify the Member States of a proposed delegation within seven days. ESMA shall publish details of any agreed delegation within five working days of notification.
Article 38 Disclosure of information from another Member State
A competent authority may disclose information received from another competent authority only if: (a) it has obtained the written agreement of that competent authority and the information is disclosed only for the purposes for which that competent authority gave its agreement; or (b) such disclosure is necessary for legal proceedings.
Article 39 Cooperation on on-site inspections and investigations
1. A competent authority may request the assistance of another competent authority with regard to on-site inspections or investigations. The competent authority receiving the request shall cooperate to the extent possible and appropriate. 2. A competent authority making a request referred to in paragraph 1 shall inform ESMA thereof. In the event of an investigation or inspection with cross-border effect, the competent authorities may request ESMA to coordinate the on-site inspection or investigation. 3. Where a competent authority receives a request from another competent authority to carry out an on-site inspection or an investigation, it may: (a) carry out the on-site inspection or investigation itself; (b) allow the competent authority which submitted the request to participate in the on-site inspection or investigation; (c) appoint auditors or experts to support or carry out the on-site inspection or investigation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 39 Cooperation on on-site inspections and investigations):
1. A competent authority may request the assistance of another competent authority with regard to on-site inspections or investigations. The competent authority receiving the request shall cooperate to the extent possible and appropriate. 2. A competent authority making a request referred to in paragraph 1 shall inform ESMA thereof. In the event of an investigation or inspection with cross-border effect, the competent authorities may request ESMA to coordinate the on-site inspection or investigation.
Article 40 Competent authorities
1. For administrators and supervised entities, each Member State shall designate the relevant competent authority responsible for carrying out the duties under this Regulation and shall inform the Commission and ESMA thereof. 2. Where a Member State designates more than one competent authority, it shall clearly determine their respective roles and shall designate a single authority to be responsible for coordinating cooperation and the exchange of information with the Commission, ESMA and other Member States' competent authorities. 3. ESMA shall publish on its website a list of the competent authorities designated in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 40 Competent authorities):
2. Each Member State shall designate the relevant competent authority responsible for carrying out the duties under this Regulation and shall inform the Commission and ESMA thereof. 3. A Member State that designates more than one competent authority in accordance with paragraph 2 shall clearly determine the respective roles of those competent authorities and shall designate a single authority to be responsible for coordinating the cooperation and the exchange of information with the Commission, ESMA and other Member States’ competent authorities. 4. ESMA shall publish on its website a list of the competent authorities designated in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
Article 41 Powers of competent authorities
1. In order to fulfil their duties under this Regulation, competent authorities shall have, in conformity with national law, at least the following supervisory and investigatory powers: (a) access to any document and other data in any form, and to receive or take a copy thereof; (b) require or demand information from any person involved in the provision of, and contribution to, a benchmark, including any service provider to which functions, services or activities in the provision of a benchmark have been outsourced as provided for in Article 10, as well as their principals, and if necessary, summon and question any such person with a view to obtaining information; (c) request, in relation to commodity benchmarks, information from contributors on related spot markets according, where applicable, to standardised formats and reports on transactions, and direct access to traders' systems; (d) carry out on-site inspections or investigations, at sites other than the private residences of natural persons; (e) enter premises of legal persons, without prejudice to Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, in order to seize documents and other data in any form, where a reasonable suspicion exists that documents and other data related to the subject-matter of the inspection or investigation may be relevant to prove a breach of this Regulation. Where prior authorisation is needed from the judicial authority of the Member State concerned, in accordance with national law, such power shall only be used after having obtained that prior authorisation; (f) require existing recordings of telephone conversations, electronic communications or other data traffic records held by supervised entities; (g) request the freezing or sequestration of assets or both; (h) require temporary cessation of any practice that the competent authority considers contrary to this Regulation; (i) impose a temporary prohibition on the exercise of professional activity; (j) take all necessary measures to ensure that the public is correctly informed about the provision of a benchmark, including by requiring the relevant administrator or a person that has published or disseminated the benchmark or both to publish a corrective statement about past contributions to or figures of the benchmark. 2. Competent authorities shall exercise their functions and powers referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the powers to impose sanctions referred to in Article 42, in accordance with their national legal frameworks, in any of the following ways: (a) directly; (b) in collaboration with other authorities or with market undertakings; (c) under their responsibility by delegation to such authorities or to market undertakings; (d) by application to the competent judicial authorities. For the exercise of those powers, competent authorities shall have in place adequate and effective safeguards in regard to the right of defence and fundamental rights. 3. Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that competent authorities have all the supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary to fulfil their duties. 4. An administrator or any other supervised entity making information available to a competent authority in accordance with paragraph 1 shall not be considered to be in breach of any restriction on disclosure of information posed by any contractual, legislative, regulatory or administrative provision.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 41 Powers of competent authorities):
For the exercise of those powers, competent authorities shall have in place adequate and effective safeguards in regard to the right of defence and fundamental rights. 3. Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that competent authorities have all the supervisory and investigatory powers that are necessary to fulfil their duties. 4. An administrator or any other supervised entity making information available to a competent authority in accordance with paragraph 1 shall not be considered to be in breach of any restriction on disclosure of information posed by any contractual, legislative, regulatory or administrative provision.
Article 42 Administrative sanctions and other administrative measures
1. Without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities in accordance with Article 41, and the right of Member States to provide for and impose criminal sanctions, Member States shall, in conformity with national law, provide for competent authorities to have the power to impose appropriate administrative sanctions and other administrative measures in relation to at least the following infringements: (a) any infringement of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 34 where they apply; and (b) any failure to cooperate or comply in an investigation or with an inspection or request covered by Article 41. Those administrative sanctions and other administrative measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 2. In the event of an infringement referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall, in conformity with national law, confer on competent authorities the power to impose at least the following administrative sanctions and other administrative measures: (a) an order requiring the administrator or supervised entity responsible for the infringement to cease the conduct and to desist from repeating that conduct; (b) the disgorgement of the profits gained or losses avoided because of the infringement where those can be determined; (c) a public warning which indicates the administrator or supervised entity responsible and the nature of the infringement; (d) withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation or the registration of an administrator; (e) a temporary ban prohibiting any natural person, who is held responsible for such infringement, from exercising management functions in administrators or supervised contributors; (f) the imposition of maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least three times the amount of the profits gained or losses avoided because of the infringement where those can be determined; (g) in respect of a natural person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, points (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Article 11(1), Article 11(2) and (3), and Articles 12, 13,14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 34, EUR 500 000 or in the Member States whose official currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 30 June 2016; or (ii) for infringements of point (d) of Article 11(1) or of Article 11(4), EUR 100 000 or in the Member States whose official currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 30 June 2016; (h) in respect of a legal person, maximum administrative pecuniary sanctions of at least: (i) for infringements of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, points (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Article 11(1), Article 11(2) and (3), and Articles 12, 13,14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 34, either EUR 1 000 000 or, in the Member States whose official currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 30 June 2016, or 10 % of its total annual turnover according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, whichever is the higher; or (ii) for infringements of point (d) of Article 11(1) or of Article 11(4), either EUR 250 000 or, in the Member States whose official currency is not the euro, the corresponding value in the national currency on 30 June 2016, or 2 % of its total annual turnover according to the last available accounts approved by the management body, whichever is the higher. For the purposes of point (h)(i) and (ii), where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary of a parent undertaking which has to prepare consolidated financial accounts in accordance with Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 26 ) , the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income in accordance with Council Directive 86/635/EEC ( 27 ) for banks and Council Directive 91/674/EEC ( 28 ) for insurance companies according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking or if the person is an association, 10 % of the aggregate turnovers of its members. 3. By 1 January 2018, Member States shall notify the rules regarding paragraphs 1 and 2 to the Commission and ESMA. Member States may decide not to lay down rules for administrative sanctions as provided for in paragraph 1 where the infringements referred to in that paragraph are subject to criminal sanctions under their national law. In that case, Member States shall communicate to the Commission and ESMA the relevant criminal law provisions along with the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph. They shall notify the Commission and ESMA without delay of any subsequent amendment thereto. 4. Member States may provide competent authorities under national law to have other powers to impose sanctions in addition to those referred to in paragraph 1 and may provide for higher levels of sanctions than those established in paragraph 2.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 42 Administrative sanctions and other administrative measures):
1. Without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities in accordance with Article 41, and the right of Member States to provide for and impose criminal sanctions, Member States shall, in conformity with national law, provide for competent authorities to have the power to impose appropriate administrative sanctions and other administrative measures in relation to at least the following infringements: (a) any infringement of Article 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19a, 19b, 19c, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 or 34 where they apply; and (b) any failure to cooperate or comply in an investigation or with an inspection or request covered by Article 41. Those administrative sanctions and other administrative measures shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. For the purposes of point (h)(i) and (ii), where the legal person is a parent undertaking or a subsidiary of a parent undertaking which has to prepare consolidated financial accounts in accordance with Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 14 ), the relevant total annual turnover shall be the total annual turnover or the corresponding type of income in accordance with Council Directive 86/635/EEC ( 15 ) for banks and Council Directive 91/674/EEC ( 16 ) for insurance companies according to the last available consolidated accounts approved by the management body of the ultimate parent undertaking or if the person is an association, 10 % of the aggregate turnovers of its members. 3. By 1 January 2018, Member States shall notify the rules regarding paragraphs 1 and 2 to the Commission and ESMA. Member States may decide not to lay down rules for administrative sanctions as provided for in paragraph 1 where the infringements referred to in that paragraph are subject to criminal sanctions under their national law. In that case, Member States shall communicate to the Commission and ESMA the relevant criminal law provisions along with the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph. They shall notify the Commission and ESMA without delay of any subsequent amendment thereto. 4. Member States may provide competent authorities under national law to have other powers to impose sanctions in addition to those referred to in paragraph 1 and may provide for higher levels of sanctions than those established in paragraph 2.
Article 43 Exercise of supervisory powers and imposition of sanctions
1. Member States shall ensure that, when determining the type and level of administrative sanctions and other administrative measures, competent authorities take into account all relevant circumstances, including where appropriate: (a) the gravity and duration of the infringement; (b) the criticality of the benchmark to financial stability and the real economy; (c) the degree of responsibility of the responsible person; (d) the financial strength of the responsible person, as indicated, in particular, by the total annual turnover of the responsible legal person or the annual income of the responsible natural person; (e) the level of the profits gained or losses avoided by the responsible person, insofar as they can be determined; (f) the level of cooperation of the responsible person with the competent authority, without prejudice to the need to ensure disgorgement of profits gained or losses avoided by that person; (g) previous infringements by the person concerned; (h) measures taken, after the infringement, by a responsible person to prevent the repetition of the infringement. 2. In the exercise of their powers to impose administrative sanctions and other administrative measures under Article 42, competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that the supervisory and investigative powers and administrative sanctions and other administrative measures produce the desired results of this Regulation. They shall also coordinate their action in order to avoid possible duplication and overlap when applying supervisory and investigative powers and administrative sanctions, including pecuniary sanctions, and other administrative measures to cross-border cases.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 43 Exercise of supervisory powers and imposition of sanctions):
2. In the exercise of their powers to impose administrative sanctions and other administrative measures under Article 42, competent authorities shall cooperate closely to ensure that the supervisory and investigative powers and administrative sanctions and other administrative measures produce the desired results of this Regulation. They shall also coordinate their action in order to avoid possible duplication and overlap when applying supervisory and investigative powers and administrative sanctions, including pecuniary sanctions, and other administrative measures to cross-border cases.
Article 44 Obligation to cooperate
1. Where Member States have chosen, in accordance with Article 42, to lay down criminal sanctions for infringements of the provisions referred to in that Article, they shall ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that competent authorities have all the necessary powers to liaise with judicial authorities within their jurisdiction to receive specific information relating to criminal investigations or proceedings commenced for possible infringements of this Regulation. Those competent authorities shall provide that information to other competent authorities and ESMA, in order to fulfil their obligation to cooperate with each other and ESMA for the purposes of this Regulation. 2. Competent authorities shall provide assistance to competent authorities of other Member States. In particular, they shall exchange information and cooperate in any investigation or supervisory activities. Competent authorities may also cooperate with competent authorities of other Member States with respect to facilitating the recovery of pecuniary sanctions.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Under the heading “An Economy that Works for People”, the Commission Work Programme for 2020 provides for a review of its regulation on financial benchmarks, the “Benchmark Regulation” (“BMR”). Financial benchmarks are indices by reference to which the amount payable under a financial instrument or a financial contract or the value of a financial instrument is determined. By setting out governance and data quality standards for benchmarks that are referenced in financial contracts, the Benchmark Regulation aims to strengthen the trust of capital market participants in indices used as benchmarks in the Union. It contributes to the Commission’ efforts in favour of a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The BMR introduces an authorisation requirement for administrators of financial benchmarks as well as requirements for contributors of input data used to calculate the financial benchmark. The BMR also regulates the use of financial benchmarks 1 . In particular, the BMR rules require EU supervised entities (such as banks, investment firms, insurance undertakings, UCITS 2 ) to use only indices whose administrator has been authorised. Benchmarks administered in third countries can only be used in the EU following an equivalence, recognition or endorsement procedure. The Benchmark Regulation applies since January 2018 3 . However, EU market participants can continue to use benchmarks administered in a country outside the Union - regardless of whether an equivalence decision is in place, the index has been recognised or endorsed for use in the Union 4 – until the transitional regime expires at the end of December 2021. 1.1.1. The orderly cessation of financial benchmarks Due to concerns about whether the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) adequately represents an underlying market or economic reality reflective of interbank borrowing, the national competent authority for LIBOR (the UK Financial Conduct Authority or “FCA”) has announced the likely cessation of LIBOR after the end of 2021. The FCA, in all its public statements, has been clear that, where a benchmark loses representativeness and its representativeness will not be restored, use of the benchmark by supervised entities must cease. Relying on a very small number of panel banks such that LIBOR was no longer representative of the underlying market or economic reality that LIBOR sought to measure, means that its value could deviate significantly from that economic reality, as well as becoming more volatile. As documented in the Commission’s impact assessment, many financial instruments and contracts that reference LIBOR will not have reached maturity by the expected cessation date after the end of 2021. Many of these contracts involve debt issued by supervised entities, debt instruments held on the balance sheet by supervised entities, the loan portfolio of supervised entities and derivative contracts that these entities have concluded to hedge their positions. As mentioned above, supervised entities within the scope of the EU Benchmark Regulation may only use indices that are authorised as compliant with the BMR. The disappearance of LIBOR will have significant economic impacts that EU supervised entities could not have anticipated when concluding these often longer maturity contracts. Many of these contracts, especially those concluded before adoption of the BMR in 2016, often lack any contractual “fall-back” provisions that deal with the permanent discontinuation of the LIBOR rate. Amending the terms of thousands of contracts that currently contain references to LIBOR will not always be possible in the short period remaining until the expected end of the LIBOR at the end of 2021. Many currently existing debt, loan, deposit and many of the derivative contracts would, upon a permanent cessation of an interest rate benchmark, such as LIBOR, lack a contractual fall-back rate that allows parties to continue to comply with their contractual obligations. If no remedies were envisaged, the discontinuation of a widely used interest rate benchmark will have negative consequences for EU supervised entities and their contractual counterparts from whom these entities either borrow or to whom they lend funds. All counterparts in contracts referencing such a benchmark that are still pending at the date of cessation will face legal uncertainty as to the validity and enforcement of their contractual obligations. The range of contracts that will be affected by the cessation of a widely used interest rate benchmark includes: (1) debt issuances by supervised entities; (2) debt held on the balance sheet of supervised entities; (3) loans; (4) deposits and (5) derivative contracts. A large part of the financial contracts that reference widely used interest rate benchmarks involve supervised entities within the scope of the BMR. The legal uncertainty and potentially adverse economic impact that may result from difficulties in the ability to enforce contractual obligations will pose a risk for financial stability in the Union. To mitigate the risk of contract frustration and the ensuing risk to financial stability, central banks in various currency areas have set up working groups to recommend fall-back rates that would apply to the legacy stock of contracts that reference interest rate benchmarks in cessation and that could not be renegotiated by the date of the permanent cessation of this benchmark. For example, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC) in the United State has recommended a waterfall that includes a replacement rate calculation based on a risk-free overnight rate (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to make the replacement rate resemble, as close as possible, the economic properties of the discontinued benchmark. The aim of these replacement rates would therefore be to mimic, to the extent possible, what the contract parties intended to achieve by references to the benchmark in cessation. It is a deliberate policy choice underpinning all recommendations for a replacement rate for legacy contracts that no new contracts (defined as contracts concluded after cessation of the benchmark) may reference the replacement rate. This is because the replacement rate is most likely a synthetic version of the benchmark in cessation and is meant to ease the transition to a new rate. For example, a replacement rate for USD LIBOR will most likely be calculated based on a risk-free overnight rate in borrowing (SOFR) plus a spread adjustment to reflect the historical spread between the risk-free overnight rate and the replaced LIBOR rate. While a synthetic version of a benchmark should be stable enough to accompany the wind-down of legacy portfolios, it is not a permanent solution, reflective of a supervised entity’s forward looking financing cost. However, even once these replacement rates are available, it will be difficult to amend all existing legacy contracts given the scale of the LIBOR references and the short period of time before LIBOR is expected to be discontinued. A reform of the BMR is therefore the right tool to establish a statutory replacement rate that mitigates the adverse consequences for legal certainty and financial stability that might ensue if LIBOR, or any other benchmark whose cessation would result in significant disruption in the functioning of financial markets in the Union, was discontinued without such a replacement rate being both available and integrated into legacy contracts that involve a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. 1.1.2. Spot f oreign exchange rates While spot foreign exchange rates play a crucial role for the international economy, for several currencies, the rates that are available are largely unregulated and are often reflective of central bank monetary policies. In some countries, central banks have implemented controls to restrict the publication of spot foreign exchange rates outside their local jurisdiction. In addition to preventing publication of off-shore foreign exchange rates, certain countries have in place capital controls that limit the convertibility of their currencies. Since their currencies are not freely convertible, the availability of on-shore currency hedging tools, such as currency forwards, swaps or options, is limited. Demand for hedging tools against currency volatility in these countries outstrips the shallow liquidity offered by the on-shore market. In consequence, European financial institutions have developed off-shore derivatives markets that, due to the convertibility restrictions in place, settle into the base currency of the hedging entity, albeit by reference to the foreign exchange rate published at the moment of the hedging contract’s expiry. Therefore, hedging against movements in currencies subject to such convertibility restrictions is done with off-shore derivative contracts. These include financial instruments such as non-deliverable currency forwards and non-deliverable swaps. Where these forwards and swaps are offered by an EU supervised entity (a dealer bank ) 1 and traded on an EU trading venue or via an EU systematic internaliser, the spot currency rate that is used to determine the pay-out due under the forward or swap agreement constitutes a “use” of the spot exchange rate which brings the offer of forwards and swaps by a supervised entity within the scope of the BMR. At the end of the current transitional period set out in Article 51 of the BMR the reference to foreign exchange spot rates in EU-traded currency forwards or swaps will no longer be allowed. This means that, at the beginning of 2022, EU supervised entities are at risk of losing access to many public policy rates administered outside the EU, including spot foreign exchange rates that they reference in derivative contracts that they offer corporate counterparts to help them manage their day-to-day hedging of currency risk. The urgency of the issue arises as almost no other jurisdiction apart from the EU regulates spot exchange rates. Due to the absence of regulation, currency spot rates could not, therefore, be the subject of an equivalence assessment under the BMR. Neither can they be recognised or endorsed for use in the Union under the BMR, as both of these mechanisms, in turn, require some form of regulation and oversight. In conclusion, foreign exchange spot rates are not suitable candidates for equivalence, endorsement or recognition by the end of the transition period. This proposal, therefore, makes targeted modification of the scope of the BMR in order to ensure that European companies retain access to hedging tools against volatility of currencies that are not freely convertible into their base currency, ensuring seamless continuation of their business activities abroad after the expiry of the transitional period at the end of 2021. 
Revised version (Article 44 Obligation to cooperate):
1. Member States that have chosen to lay down criminal sanctions for infringements of the provisions referred to in Article 42 shall ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that the competent authorities designated in accordance with Article 40(2) and (3) have all the necessary powers to liaise with judicial authorities within their jurisdiction to receive specific information relating to criminal investigations or proceedings commenced for possible infringements of this Regulation. Those competent authorities shall provide that information to other competent authorities and to ESMA. 2. Competent authorities designated in accordance with Article 40(2) and (3) shall assist other competent authorities and ESMA. In particular, they shall exchange information and cooperate in any investigation or supervisory activities. Competent authorities may also cooperate with other competent authorities to facilitate the recovery of pecuniary sanctions.