Article 10 Post-trade transparency requirements for trading venues in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives
1. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make public the price, volume and time of the transactions executed in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make details of all such transactions public as close to real-time as is technically possible. 2. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall give access, on reasonable commercial terms and on a non-discriminatory basis, to the arrangements they employ for making public the information under paragraph 1 to investment firms which are obliged to publish the details of their transactions in bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives pursuant to Article 21.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 10 Post-trade transparency requirements for trading venues in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives):
1. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make public the price, volume and time of transactions executed in respect of bonds, structured finance products and emission allowances traded on a trading venue. Those requirements shall also apply to transactions executed in respect of exchange-traded derivatives and in respect of OTC derivatives as referred to in Article 8a(2). Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make details of all such transactions public as close to real time as technically possible. 2. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall give access, on reasonable commercial terms and on a non-discriminatory basis, to their arrangements for making public the information pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article to investment firms which are obliged, pursuant to Article 21, to publish the details of their transactions in bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and OTC derivatives as referred to in Article 8a(2). 3. Information relating to a package transaction shall be made available in respect of each component as close to real time as technically possible, having regard to the need to allocate prices to particular financial instruments, and shall include a flag to identify that the component belongs to a package. Where a component of the package transaction is eligible for deferred publication pursuant to Article 11 or 11a, information on the component shall be made available after the period of deferral for the transaction has lapsed.
Article 11 Authorisation of deferred publication
1. Competent authorities shall be able to authorise market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue to provide for deferred publication of the details of transactions based on the size or type of the transaction. In particular, the competent authorities may authorise the deferred publication in respect of transactions that: (a) are large in scale compared with the normal market size for that bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, or for that class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue; or (b) are related to a bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, or a class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue for which there is not a liquid market; (c) are above a size specific to that bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, or that class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, which would expose liquidity providers to undue risk and takes into account whether the relevant market participants are retail or wholesale investors. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall obtain the competent authority’s prior approval of proposed arrangements for deferred trade-publication, and shall clearly disclose those arrangements to market participants and the public. ESMA shall monitor the application of those arrangements for deferred trade-publication and shall submit an annual report to the Commission on how they are used in practice. 2. The competent authority responsible for supervising one or more trading venues on which a class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative is traded may, where the liquidity of that class of financial instrument falls below the threshold determined in accordance with the methodology as referred to in Article 9(5)(a), temporarily suspend the obligations referred to in Article 10. That threshold shall be defined based on objective criteria specific to the market for the financial instrument concerned. Such temporary suspension shall be published on the website of the relevant competent authority. The temporary suspension shall be valid for an initial period not exceeding three months from the date of its publication on the website of the relevant competent authority. Such a suspension may be renewed for further periods not exceeding three months at a time if the grounds for the temporary suspension continue to be applicable. Where the temporary suspension is not renewed after that three-month period, it shall automatically lapse. Before suspending or renewing the temporary suspension of the obligations referred to in Article 10, the relevant competent authority shall notify ESMA of its intention and provide an explanation. ESMA shall issue an opinion to the competent authority as soon as practicable on whether in its view the suspension or the renewal of the temporary suspension is justified in accordance with the first and second subparagraphs. 3. Competent authorities may, in conjunction with an authorisation of deferred publication: (a) request the publication of limited details of a transaction or details of several transactions in an aggregated form, or a combination thereof, during the time period of deferral; (b) allow the omission of the publication of the volume of an individual transaction during an extended time period of deferral; (c) regarding non-equity instruments that are not sovereign debt, allow the publication of several transactions in an aggregated form during an extended time period of deferral; (d) regarding sovereign debt instruments, allow the publication of several transactions in an aggregated form for an indefinite period of time. In relation to sovereign debt instruments, points (b) and (d) may be used either separately or consecutively whereby once the volume omission extended period lapses, the volumes could then be published in aggregated form. In relation to all other financial instruments, when the deferral time period lapses, the outstanding details of the transaction and all the details of the transactions on an individual basis shall be published. 4. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the following in such a way as to enable the publication of information required under Article 64 of Directive 2014/65/EU: (a) the details of transactions that investment firms, including systematic internalisers, and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make available to the public for each class of financial instrument concerned in accordance with Article 10(1), including identifiers for the different types of transactions published under Article 10(1) and Article 21(1), distinguishing between those determined by factors linked primarily to the valuation of the financial instruments and those determined by other factors; (b) the time limit that would be deemed in compliance with the obligation to publish as close to real time as possible including when trades are executed outside ordinary trading hours; (c) the conditions for authorising investment firms, including systematic internalisers, and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue, to provide for deferred publication of the details of transactions for each class of financial instrument concerned in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and with Article 21(4); (d) the criteria to be applied when determining the size or type of a transaction for which deferred publication and publication of limited details of a transaction, or publication of details of several transactions in an aggregated form, or omission of the publication of the volume of a transaction with particular reference to allowing an extended length of time of deferral for certain financial instruments depending on their liquidity, is allowed under paragraph 3. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Integrated financial markets bring significant benefits to the funding of the European economy and for promoting jobs and growth on a sound and sustainable basis. To promote financial integration and market integrity while safeguarding financial stability, the EU internal market for financial services requires common rules and strong supervisory coordination. When the EU overhauled its financial system in response to the financial crisis, and in line with global efforts, it therefore introduced a Single Rulebook for financial regulation in Europe and created the European Supervisory Authorities ("ESAs"). The ESAs constitute an institutional cornerstone of the comprehensive reform package and have played a key role in ensuring that the financial markets across the EU are well regulated, strong and stable. They contribute to the development and consistent application of the Single Rulebook, solve cross-border problems, and thereby promote both regulatory and supervisory convergence. Despite the post-crisis measures, there remains significant potential to enhance regulatory and supervisory convergence in the internal market. Integrated financial markets require more integrated supervisory arrangements to function effectively, while more centralised supervisory arrangements can, in turn, foster market integration. For this reason, the EU has engaged in further integration across the broader financial sector on a sound and stable basis. In particular, the Capital Markets Union ("CMU") has been launched so a s to lay the foundations for a fully functional internal market for capital markets. In this context, the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union of June 2015 1 highlighted the need to strengthen the EU supervisory framew ork, leading ultimately to a single capital-markets supervisor. More recently, the Commission Reflection Paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union 2 suggests that a review of the EU supervisory framework – in particular of the European Secu rities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") - should deliver the first steps towards such a single supervisor by 2019. The Reflection Paper also called for completing the Financial Union - comprising both a Banking Union and a Capital Markets Union– by 2019 so a s to guarantee the integrity of the euro and improve the functioning of the euro area and the EU as a whole. Global financial markets are strongly interconnected, and the EU's regulatory framework is largely based on international standards agreed in the w ake of the financial crisis notably among G20 countries. As the EU is striving to accelerate the completion of the CMU, it is therefore essential that EU supervisory arrangements continue to develop in a manner which allows to reap the full potential of i nternationally integrated financial markets while ensuring that cross-border risks between the EU and the rest of the world can be monitored and managed effectively. The ESAs have a key role to play in this regard. Finally, the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the EU reinforces these challenges for supervisory arrangements within the remaining EU27. The future departure of the EU’s currently largest financial centre means that EU27 capital markets need to develop further and supervisory arrangements must be strengthened to ensure that financial markets continue to support the economy on an adequate and sound basis. The objective of the present proposal is to adjust and upgrade the ESAs framework to ensure they can assume an enhanced responsibility for financial market supervision. The ESAs must be adequately equipped in terms of powers, governance and funding. First, where existing powers of the ESAs have proven partially insufficient and unclearly defined, for example as regards the consistent application of EU law, the drafting of technical advice or the provision of ongoing support to equivalence decisions, they must be strengthened and improved. The current scope of the ESAs' mandate must also be reconsidered in light of the policy objectives of the CMU. More common direct supervision in targeted areas is necessary to ensure more consistent supervisory practices and implementation of EU financial services rules. The 2017 review of the ESA Regulations concluded that the supervision of certain activities and entities with particular importance for the Union as a whole or with a significant degree of cross-border business should be carried out by the ESAs instead of by national competent authorities. Similarly, the ESAs should be more involved in the authorisation and supervision of entities from non-EU countries that are active in the Union. Second, this proposal aims at establishing a more effective governance of the ESAs. The incentive structure in the decision-making process of the ESAs as it stands today leads to the absence of decisions in particular in the area of regulatory convergence and supervisory convergence, or promotes decisions that are predominantly oriented towards national instead of broader EU interests. This reflects, to so me extent, an inherent tension between the European mandate of the ESAs and the national mandate of the competent authorities that are members of the ESA Boards. 3 This position is not well aligned with the objective of supervisory convergence. A greater role for the ESAs in deepening financial integration or strengthening the stability of the internal market will also require more effective convergence powers. 4 Third, the ESAs need an appropriate funding base which allows them to allocate resources in relation to their needs to fulfil their objective. Current budget arrangements constrain and will continue to constrain the ESAs' activities, as Member States for different reasons might be unwilling to increase national contributions further. The present proposal sets out specific amendments to the ESA Regulations 5 and various sector acts 6 to reinforce the powers, governance and funding framework of the ESAs, as these are the areas which need to be reinforced to allow the ESAs to meet the challenges outlin ed above. The impact assessment report accompanying this proposal considers the costs and benefits of these amendments. It sets out a number of options of measures intended to enhance the powers of the ESAs at EU level, improve their governance (including decision- making), and to ensure that their funding framework is sustainable and commensurate with current and future tasks. The impact assessment provides comprehensive evidence that the proposed amendments contribute effectively to reinforcing the ESA framework and thereby to the overall stability of the EU financial system, while keeping costs to the EU General Budget and stakeholders at a minimum. The proposed amendments also contribute to the further development and deepening of the CMU, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. 
Revised version (Article 11 Authorisation of deferred publication):
1. Competent authorities shall be able to authorise market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue to provide for deferred publication of the details of transactions based on the size or type of the transaction. In particular, the competent authorities may authorise the deferred publication in respect of transactions that: (a) are large in scale compared with the normal market size for that bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, or for that class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue; or (b) are related to a bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, or a class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue for which there is not a liquid market; (c) are above a size specific to that bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, or that class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative traded on a trading venue, which would expose liquidity providers to undue risk and takes into account whether the relevant market participants are retail or wholesale investors. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall obtain the competent authority’s prior approval of proposed arrangements for deferred trade-publication, and shall clearly disclose those arrangements to market participants and the public. ESMA shall monitor the application of those arrangements for deferred trade-publication and shall submit an annual report to the Commission on how they are used in practice. 2. The competent authority responsible for supervising one or more trading venues on which a class of bond, structured finance product, emission allowance or derivative is traded may, where the liquidity of that class of financial instrument falls below the threshold determined in accordance with the methodology as referred to in Article 9(5)(a), temporarily suspend the obligations referred to in Article 10. That threshold shall be defined based on objective criteria specific to the market for the financial instrument concerned. Such temporary suspension shall be published on the website of the relevant competent authority. The temporary suspension shall be valid for an initial period not exceeding three months from the date of its publication on the website of the relevant competent authority. Such a suspension may be renewed for further periods not exceeding three months at a time if the grounds for the temporary suspension continue to be applicable. Where the temporary suspension is not renewed after that three-month period, it shall automatically lapse. Before suspending or renewing the temporary suspension of the obligations referred to in Article 10, the relevant competent authority shall notify ESMA of its intention and provide an explanation. ESMA shall issue an opinion to the competent authority as soon as practicable on whether in its view the suspension or the renewal of the temporary suspension is justified in accordance with the first and second subparagraphs. 3. Competent authorities may, in conjunction with an authorisation of deferred publication: (a) request the publication of limited details of a transaction or details of several transactions in an aggregated form, or a combination thereof, during the time period of deferral; (b) allow the omission of the publication of the volume of an individual transaction during an extended time period of deferral; (c) regarding non-equity instruments that are not sovereign debt, allow the publication of several transactions in an aggregated form during an extended time period of deferral; (d) regarding sovereign debt instruments, allow the publication of several transactions in an aggregated form for an indefinite period of time. In relation to sovereign debt instruments, points (b) and (d) may be used either separately or consecutively whereby once the volume omission extended period lapses, the volumes could then be published in aggregated form. In relation to all other financial instruments, when the deferral time period lapses, the outstanding details of the transaction and all the details of the transactions on an individual basis shall be published. 4. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the following in such a way as to enable the publication of information required under Article 64 of Directive 2014/65/EU: (b) the time limit that would be deemed in compliance with the obligation to publish as close to real time as possible including when trades are executed outside ordinary trading hours; (c) the conditions for authorising investment firms, including systematic internalisers, and market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue, to provide for deferred publication of the details of transactions for each class of financial instrument concerned in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and with Article 21(4); (d) the criteria to be applied when determining the size or type of a transaction for which deferred publication and publication of limited details of a transaction, or publication of details of several transactions in an aggregated form, or omission of the publication of the volume of a transaction with particular reference to allowing an extended length of time of deferral for certain financial instruments depending on their liquidity, is allowed under paragraph 3. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 12 Obligation to make pre-trade and post-trade data available separately
1. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make the information published in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 6 to 11 available to the public by offering pre-trade and post-trade transparency data separately. 2. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the offering of pre-trade and post-trade transparency data, including the level of disaggregation of the data to be made available to the public as referred to in paragraph 1. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 13 Obligation to make pre-trade and post-trade data available on a reasonable commercial basis
1. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make the information published in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 6 to 11 available to the public on a reasonable commercial basis and ensure non-discriminatory access to the information. Such information shall be made available free of charge 15 minutes after publication. 2. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 clarifying what constitutes a reasonable commercial basis to make information public as referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 13 Obligation to make pre-trade and post-trade data available on a reasonable commercial basis):
1. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue, APAs, CTPs and systematic internalisers shall make available to the public the information published in accordance with Articles 3, 4, 6 to 11a, 14, 20, 21, 27g and 27h on a reasonable commercial basis, including unbiased and fair contractual terms. Those market operators and investment firms, APAs, CTPs and systematic internalisers shall ensure non-discriminatory access to such information. The data policies of those market operators and investment firms, APAs, CTPs and systematic internalisers shall be made available to the public free of charge in a manner which is easy to access and to understand. 2. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue, APAs and systematic internalisers shall make available to the public the information referred to in paragraph 1 free of charge 15 minutes after publication in a format that is machine-readable and usable for all users, including retail investors. 3. The reasonable commercial basis shall include the level of fees and other contractual terms. The level of fees shall be determined by the cost of producing and disseminating the information referred to in paragraph 1 and a reasonable margin. 4. Market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue, APAs, CTPs and systematic internalisers shall, upon request, provide their competent authority with information on the actual costs of producing and disseminating the information referred to in paragraph 1, including a reasonable margin. ESMA shall, every two years, monitor and assess the developments in the cost of data and shall, where appropriate, update those draft regulatory technical standards on the basis of its assessment. ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by 29 December 2024. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first and second subparagraphs in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 14 Obligation for systematic internalisers to make public firm quotes in respect of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments
1. Investment firms shall make public firm quotes in respect of those shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments traded on a trading venue for which they are systematic internalisers and for which there is a liquid market. Where there is not a liquid market for the financial instruments referred to in the first subparagraph, systematic internalisers shall disclose quotes to their clients upon request. 2. This Article and Articles 15, 16 and 17 shall apply to systematic internalisers when they deal in sizes up to standard market size. Systematic internalisers shall not be subject to this Article and Articles 15, 16 and 17 when they deal in sizes above standard market size. 3. Systematic internalisers may decide the size or sizes at which they will quote. The minimum quote size shall be at least the equivalent of 10 % of the standard market size of a share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument traded on a trading venue. For a particular share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument traded on a trading venue each quote shall include a firm bid and offer price or prices for a size or sizes which could be up to standard market size for the class of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates or other similar financial instruments to which the financial instrument belongs. The price or prices shall reflect the prevailing market conditions for that share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument. 4. Shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments shall be grouped in classes on the basis of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market for that financial instrument. The standard market size for each class of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments shall be a size representative of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market for the financial instruments included in each class. 5. The market for each share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument shall be comprised of all orders executed in the Union in respect of that financial instrument excluding those that are large in scale compared to normal market size. 6. The competent authority of the most relevant market in terms of liquidity as defined in Article 26 for each share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate and other similar financial instrument shall determine at least annually, on the basis of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market in respect of that financial instrument, the class to which it belongs. That information shall be made public to all market participants and communicated to ESMA which shall publish the information on its website. 7. In order to ensure the efficient valuation of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments and maximise the possibility of investment firms to obtain the best deal for their clients, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify further the arrangements for the publication of a firm quote as referred to in paragraph 1, the determination of whether prices reflect prevailing market conditions as referred to in paragraph 3, and of the standard market size as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 3 July 2015. Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 14 Obligation for systematic internalisers to make public firm quotes in respect of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments):
1. Investment firms shall make public firm quotes in respect of those shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments traded on a trading venue for which they are systematic internalisers and for which there is a liquid market. Where there is not a liquid market for the financial instruments referred to in the first subparagraph, systematic internalisers shall disclose quotes to their clients upon request. 2. This Article and Articles 15, 16 and 17 shall apply to systematic internalisers when they deal in sizes of up to and including the threshold determined in the regulatory technical standards adopted pursuant to paragraph 7, point (b), of this Article. 3. The minimum quote size of systematic internalisers shall be determined in the regulatory technical standards adopted pursuant to paragraph 7, point (c). For a particular share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument traded on a trading venue, each quote shall include a firm bid and offer price for a size which could be of up to and including the threshold referred to in paragraph 2. The price shall reflect the prevailing market conditions for that share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument. 4. Shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments shall be grouped in classes on the basis of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market for that financial instrument. The standard market size for each class of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments shall be a size representative of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market for the financial instruments included in each class. 5. The market for each share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate or other similar financial instrument shall be comprised of all orders executed in the Union in respect of that financial instrument excluding those that are large in scale compared to normal market size. 6. The competent authority of the most relevant market in terms of liquidity as defined in Article 26 for each share, depositary receipt, ETF, certificate and other similar financial instrument shall determine at least annually, on the basis of the arithmetic average value of the orders executed in the market in respect of that financial instrument, the class to which it belongs. That information shall be made public to all market participants and communicated to ESMA which shall publish the information on its website.
Article 15 Execution of client orders
1. Systematic internalisers shall make public their quotes on a regular and continuous basis during normal trading hours. They may update their quotes at any time. They shall be allowed, under exceptional market conditions, to withdraw their quotes. Member States shall require that firms that meet the definition of systematic internaliser notify their competent authority. Such notification shall be transmitted to ESMA. ESMA shall establish a list of all SIs in the Union. The quotes shall be made public in a manner which is easily accessible to other market participants on a reasonable commercial basis. 2. Systematic internalisers shall, while complying with Article 27 of Directive 2014/65//EU, execute the orders they receive from their clients in relation to the shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments for which they are systematic internalisers at the quoted prices at the time of reception of the order. However, in justified cases, they may execute those orders at a better price provided that the price falls within a public range close to market conditions. 3. Systematic internalisers may execute orders they receive from their professional clients at prices different than their quoted ones without having to comply with the requirements established in paragraph 2, in respect of transactions where execution in several securities is part of one transaction or in respect of orders that are subject to conditions other than the current market price. 4. Where a systematic internaliser quoting only one quote or whose highest quote is lower than the standard market size receives an order from a client of a size bigger than its quotation size, but lower than the standard market size, it may decide to execute that part of the order which exceeds its quotation size, provided that it is executed at the quoted price, except where otherwise permitted under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3. Where the systematic internaliser is quoting in different sizes and receives an order between those sizes, which it chooses to execute, it shall execute the order at one of the quoted prices in compliance with Article 28 of Directive 2014/65/EU, except where otherwise permitted under the conditions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. 5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50, clarifying what constitutes a reasonable commercial basis to make quotes public as referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 15 Execution of client orders):
1. Systematic internalisers shall make public their quotes on a regular and continuous basis during normal trading hours. They may update their quotes at any time. They shall be allowed, under exceptional market conditions, to withdraw their quotes. Member States shall require that firms that meet the definition of systematic internaliser notify their competent authority. Such notification shall be transmitted to ESMA. ESMA shall establish a list of all SIs in the Union. Systematic internalisers shall establish and implement transparent and non-discriminatory rules and objective criteria for the efficient execution of orders. They shall have arrangements for the sound management of their technical operations, including the establishment of effective contingency arrangements to address risks of systems disruption. 2. Systematic internalisers shall, while complying with Article 27 of Directive 2014/65//EU, execute the orders they receive from their clients in relation to the shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments for which they are systematic internalisers at the quoted prices at the time of reception of the order. However, in justified cases, they may execute those orders at a better price provided that the price falls within a public range close to market conditions. 3. Systematic internalisers may execute orders they receive from their professional clients at prices different than their quoted ones without having to comply with the requirements established in paragraph 2, in respect of transactions where execution in several securities is part of one transaction or in respect of orders that are subject to conditions other than the current market price. 4. Where a systematic internaliser quoting only one quote or whose highest quote is lower than the standard market size receives an order from a client of a size bigger than its quotation size, but lower than the standard market size, it may decide to execute that part of the order which exceeds its quotation size, provided that it is executed at the quoted price, except where otherwise permitted under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3. Where the systematic internaliser is quoting in different sizes and receives an order between those sizes, which it chooses to execute, it shall execute the order at one of the quoted prices in compliance with Article 28 of Directive 2014/65/EU, except where otherwise permitted under the conditions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. 5. ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to determine the content and format of the notification referred to in paragraph 1, second subparagraph. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 29 March 2025. Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 16 Obligations of competent authorities
The competent authorities shall check the following: (a) that investment firms regularly update bid and offer prices published in accordance with Article 14 and maintain prices which reflect the prevailing market conditions; (b) that investment firms comply with the conditions for price improvement laid down in Article 15(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Political context This proposal is part of the Listing Act package, a set of measures to make public markets more attractive for EU companies and facilitate access to capital for small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). It is in line with the Capital Markets Union (CMU) core aim to improve access to market-based sources of financing for EU companies at each stage of their development, including for smaller companies. L isted companies , including recently listed ones, often outpace privately owned companies in terms of annual revenue growth and job creation 1 . By listing on public markets, companies can diversify their investor base, reduce their dependency on bank financing, gain easier and cheaper access to additional equity capital and debt finance (through secondary offers), raise their public profile and increase brand recognition . Since the publication of the first CMU Action Plan in 2015, progress has been made to make it easier and cheaper for companies, in particular SMEs, to access public markets. In January 2018, the Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, or ‘ MiFID II ’ ) 2 introduced a new category of Multilateral Trading Facilities (MTFs), the SME growth markets , 3 to incenti vise SMEs access to capital markets. In 2019, new EU rules were put forward by Regulation (EU) 2019/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4 (SME Listing Act) to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burden for companies listing on SME growth markets while preserving a high level of investor protection and market integrity . Nevertheless, despite this progress, stakeholders argue that further regulatory action is needed to streamline the listing process and make it more flexible for issuers. The new CMU Action Plan adopted in September 2020 announced that ‘ in order to promote and diversify small and innovative companies’ access to funding, the Commission will seek to simplify the listing rules for public markets ’ . Following up on this and building on the 2019 SME Listing Act, the Commission set up a Technical Expert Stakeholder Group (TESG) on SMEs which confirmed stakeholders’ concerns that further legislative action is needed to support listing of companies and especially of SMEs. In its final report of May 2021 5 , the TESG made 12 recommendations to amend the listing framework both on regulated markets, as well as on SME growth markets . On 15 September 2021 , President Von der Leyen announced in her letter of intent 6 addressed to the Parliament and the Presidency of the Council a legislative proposal to facilitate SMEs’ access to capital, which has been included in the 2022 Commission work programme 7 . A company’s decision to list is a complex one and is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which are outside the reach of regulators and therefore cannot be addressed directly by a legislative intervention. For instance, the features of the ecosystem that determine the cost of listing services, and more broadly geopolitical instability, Brexit, Covid-19, and inflation, have all had (and will continue to have) an impact on the decision to list, on the timing of listing, and on whether to remain listed in the EU. Regulatory requirements and the associated costs and burden, however, are also an important factor in a company’s decision to list and remain listed. The Listing Act package represents a targeted set of measures aiming to reduce the regulatory burden where it is considered to be excessive (i.e., where regulation could ensure investor protection/market integrity in a more cost efficient manner for stakeholders) and to increase the flexibility accorded under company law to a company’s founder(s) or controlling shareholder(s) to choose how to distribute voting rights after the admission to trading of shares. The regulatory framework applying to the listing process is multifaceted. Companies must comply with regulatory requirements before, during and after the i nitial p ublic o ffering (IPO). This proposal focuses specifically on the regulatory burden that emerges at two moments: the IPO stage and the post-IPO stage. It addresses regulatory burden at the IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council 8 (the Prospectus Regulation ) and it addresses regulatory burden at the post-IPO stage by introducing targeted amendments to Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 9 ( the Market Abuse Regulation or ‘ MAR ’ ). It also contains limited technical amendments to Regulation No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation or ‘ MiFIR ’ ) 10 . The proposed regulation is accompanied by two other legislative proposals: · a proposal for a d irective amending MiFID II and repealing Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11 ( the Listing Directive), which aims to both (i) streamline and clarify listing requirements and (ii) to increase the low level of investment research on SMEs; · a proposal for a new d irective on multiple-vote share structures, which aims to address the regulatory barriers that emerge at the pre-IPO phase and, in particular, the unequal opportunities faced by companies across the EU when choos ing the appropriate governance structures when they list . Reasons for the proposal When making a decision on whether or not to list, companies weigh expected benefits against the costs. If costs prevail, or if alternative sources of financing offer a less costly and easier option, companies will not seek access to public markets. Feedback from the market indicates that the initial and ongoing costs of becoming a public company have risen considerably in recent decades, both in absolute terms and relative to private equity funding, in particular for SMEs. The regulatory environment impacts all stages of the listing process and is among the driving forces of the high costs of listing and staying listed. Companies are required to comply with several disclosure and reporting requirements under EU law, especially the Prospectus Regulation and MAR. The aim of the Prospectus Regulation is to enhanc e the internal market for capital by ensur ing investor protection and market efficiency while helping companies, including SMEs, access different forms of finance in the EU 12 . The Prospectus Regulation lays down requirements for the drawing up, approval and distribution of the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market . A prospectus is a document presenting information about a company and the securities that such company offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. This information should be the basis on which investors can decide whether to invest in securities issued by that company. The Prospectus Regulation does not apply under certain circumstances, such as for non-equity securities issued by certain sovereign or supranational entities, or for offers of securities to the public with a total consideration in the Union below EUR 1 million over a period of 12 months. It also includes several exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus for offers of securities to the public or admission to trading on a regulated market. In particular, Member States may exempt from the obligation to publish a prospectus offers of securities to the public of up to EUR 8 million over a period of 12 months, provided that they do not require notification (a ‘passport’). For offers below EUR 1 million or the relevant threshold set at national level, Member States may require national disclosure documents, provided that they do not constitute a disproportionate or unnecessary burden. Hence, issuers willing to offer securities cross-border need to comply with the threshold and disclosure requirements set out by the concerned Member States, unless those issuers draw up a prospectus on a voluntary basis in order to benefit from the EU single passport. Under the CMU Action Plan, progress has already been made to make it easier and cheaper for co mpanies, in particular smaller ones, to draw-up a prospectus. The Prospectus Regulation introduced the EU Growth prospectus – an alleviated form of a standard prospectus - for SMEs listed on SME growth markets. It aimed to reduce the costs of preparing a prospectus by smaller issuers, while providing investors with material information to assess the offer and take an informed investment decision. The Prospectus Regulation also introduced a simplified prospectus for companies whose securities are admitted to trading continuously and for at least the last 18 months on a regulated market or an SME growth market and wishing to issue additional shares or raise debt ( follow-on or secondary issuance s ). Issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on an SME growth market can also use this simplified prospectus to transfer subsequently to regulated markets. Finally, Regulation (EU) 2021/337 of the European Parliament and of the Council 13 introduced, as part of the Capital Markets Recovery Package (CMRP), a new type of short-form prospectus (the “EU Recovery prospectus”) . The EU Recovery prospectus is available to issuers that have shares already admitted to trading o n a regulated market or an SME g rowth market continuously for at least the last 18 months and that issue additional shares to overcome the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis and contain excessive indebtedness. Th e EU Recovery prospectus regime will however expire on 31 December 2022. Despite the alleviations introduced, feedback from stakeholders indicated that the requirement to produce a prospectus remains overly burdensome. This refers to both instances where companies seek access to public markets for the first time (IPO) and where they access public markets for follow-on of equity or non-equity securities. The current rules in particular contribute to overly lengthy prospectuses. For example, in some cases, the Prospectus Regulation requires information that may not be indispensable for investors to make an informed investment decision (i.e., not justified from the investor protection point of view). Feedback to the public consultation (echoed during the stakeholders’ meetings) confirmed the view that neither the standard prospectus nor the EU Growth prospectus strikes an appropriate balance between effective investor protection and the proportionate administrative burden for issuers, especially SMEs. In other cases, a prospectus is required when a lot of information is already available in the public domain (in particular, in the case of follow-on issuances). The excessive length of the prospectus can also discourage some, in particular smaller, investors from consulting it and translate into a higher cost of investing for larger investors. It also requires a longer period of time for the national competent authority (NCA) to scrutinise and approve the prospectus. The current rules also contribute to very divergent prospectuses across the EU. D ata reported by Oxera 14 and by the European Securities and Markets Authorities ( ES MA ) 15 shows a large discrepancy between Member States regarding the l ength of prospectuses, which is indicative of a lack of uniformity of prospectuses in the EU . This discrepancy stems also from the fact that the current rules do not sufficiently frame supervisory scrutiny by NCAs. Feedback from stakeholders highlighted that the EU regulatory framework places overly burdensome requirements also on already listed issuers, in particular under MAR. Since its entry into application on 1 July 2016, MAR has been extended to MTFs, including SME growth markets. MAR aims to increase market integrity and investor confidence. It prohibits from: (i) engaging or attempting to engage in insider dealing 16 ; (ii) recommending that another person engages in insider dealing or induces another person to engage in insider dealing; (iii) unlawfully disclosing inside information 17 ; or (iv) engaging in or attempting to engage in market manipulation. Issuers are also subject to several disclosure and record-keeping obligations under MAR. In particular, issuers are under a general obligation to disclose all inside information to the public as soon as possible 18 . Feedback from stakeholders indicated that some aspects of the MAR disclosure regime place a disproportionately high burden on issuers. In particular, stakeholders perceive as burdensome the obligation to disclose as soon as possible all inside information. This is due to the broadness of the notion of inside information (which gives rise to difficulties for issuers when delineating between what is and what is not inside information), as well as to the fact that the same notion applies both for the purpose of the prohibition of insider dealing and for the purpose of disclosure. While the broadness of the notion of inside information allows to cater for a wide and very early prohibition of insider dealing, it also implies that issuers are required to disclose information at a very early stage, when information on circumstances or events have not yet reached a high degree of certainty. The notion of inside information covers not only events that have already occurred but also events which are “reasonably expected to occur” (i.e., for which there is a realistic prospect to occur) and, in the context of protracted processes (such as a merger), the intermediate steps which are connected with bringing about a future event. As a consequence, issuers incur high compliance costs to understand which steps of a protracted process may constitute inside information and when a certain piece of information is mature enough to be disclosed. At the same time, the effectiveness of disclosure in reducing information asymmetries between issuers and investors is limited if information is too preliminary, incomplete and still potentially subject to fundamental changes. Too early disclosure of information could mislead investors and trigger action on his/her part that could prove to be suboptimal in hindsight (e.g., divesting the stock too soon or not divesting soon enough), thus increasing the opportunity cost for investors. Furthermore, issuers face a lack of legal clarity around the conditions that need to be met to delay disclosure when immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuers (e.g., by jeopardising the successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations). A few additional reporting and disclosure requirements under MAR place a disproportionately high burden on issuers, such as the provisions on managers’ transactions, insider lists, and market sounding. Current MAR rules also create a disproportionate sanctioning regime for disclosure-related infringements, in particular for SMEs, which may potentially be sanctioned at the same level as large companies. Objectives of the proposal The overall objective of this initiative is to introduce technical adjustments to the EU rulebook in order to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for companies seeking to list or already listed with a view to streamlining the listing process and enhancing legal clarity, while ensuring an appropriate level of investor protection and market integrity. This, in turn, is expected to help diversify funding sources for companies in the EU and increase investments, economic growth, job creation and innovation in the EU. The proposed targeted amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim in particular to make it easier and cheaper for issuers to draw up a prospectus, while enabling investors to make the right investment decision by providing comprehensible, easy to analyse and concise information. They also seek to introduce sizable simplifications to, or even exemptions from, the prospectus requirements in cases where the issuer is already known to investors and a lot of information is already publicly available (follow-on issuances). These amendments are accompanied by amendments aimed at fostering the convergence of and streamlining the scrutiny and approval process by NCAs (for example, by narrowly frame the ability of NCAs to request issuers to include additional information in the prospectus). In the case of an offer of securities to the public or the admission to trading on a regulated market, the proposal streamlines and further standardises the standard prospectus (referring to a non-alleviated prospectus type, irrespective of whether it relates to equity or non-equity securities, or whether is drawn up as a single document or consists of separate documents). The proposal aligns the level of disclosure of the standard prospectus to the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Growth prospectus regime, introduces a fixed order of disclosure and makes incorporation by reference a legal requirement. The proposal also introduces the possibility for issuers to draw up the prospectus in English only as the language customary in the sphere of international finance (except for the summary which in practice is the only document that most retail investors consult), and to publish it in an electronic format only (i.e., no paper copies on request). At the same time, only for shares or other transferable securities equivalent to shares in companies, a limit number of pages (300 pages) is introduced to avoid overly lengthy prospectuses for companies that do not have a complex financial history. Jointly, these amendments seek to provide a tangible cost and burden reduction for issuers, while ensuring that investors can take advantage of a document that is easier to read and navigate and more easily compare financial instruments and issuers. The proposal also seeks to make it easier for SMEs to raise funds on public markets, in particular on SME growth markets, by generating further cost savings for SMEs and better tailoring disclosure to the needs of investors. For companies offering securities to the public and listing on SME growth markets (as well as for offers of securities to the public by smaller companies), the EU Growth prospectus is replaced by a mandatory new short-form EU Growth issuance document. This document builds on the level of disclosure currently required under the EU Recovery prospectus regime and existing admission documents required by SME growth markets (where the obligation to publish a prospectus does not apply), follows a fixed order of disclosure and is subject, in the case of shares and other equivalent transferable securities, to a page limit. While the proposal exempts, under certain conditions, from the prospectus requirement offers of securities fungible with securities already admitted to trading (for which the publication of a summary document will suffice), it subjects follow-on issuances of non-fungible securities to the approval and publication of a new mandatory short-form EU Follow-on prospectus, largely building on the current EU Recovery prospectus regime. These amendments seek to ensure that companies can fully benefit from the advantages of accessing public capital markets, including easier and quicker access to additional equity capital and debt finance through follow-on offers. At the same time, they safeguard investor protection as these companies are already subject to periodic and ongoing disclosure and reporting requirements and, in addition, issuers will be required to publish the most relevant information for investors. Finally, the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation aim to foster cross-border offers by harmonising and increasing to EUR 12 million the threshold for exempting small offers of securities to the public from the obligation to publish a prospectus. This amendment also seeks to benefit smaller issuers, including SMEs, as in certain cases they will no longer have to produce a prospectus, lowering substantially their regulatory costs and incentivising them to access public capital markets. The proposal also introduces amendments to the rules on equivalence for third countries prospectuses to make them workable. The proposed targeted amendments to MAR aim to reduce legal uncertainty on what constitutes inside information for the purpose of disclosure as well as on the timing of disclosure. While the proposal maintains the current broad notion of inside information for the purposes of the insider dealing regulation, it narrows down the scope of the disclosure obligation. The proposal clarifies in particular that the obligation to disclose all inside information to the public does not cover the information relating to the intermediate steps of a protracted process, as this information is too preliminary and hence not mature enough for disclosure. At the same time, the proposal introduces an empowerment for the Commission to establish, by way of a delegated act a non-exhaustive list of the relevant information as well as, for each information, an indication of the timing when issuers are expected to disclose it. Jointly, these amendments seek to make the MAR disclosure regime less costly to comply with by issuers, more predictable from the investors’ point of view and more conducive to effective price formation. The amendments to the disclosure obligation are accompanied by improvements to the regime for the exchange of information among NCAs to enable them to better identify cases of market manipulation by setting up a cross market order book surveillance (CMOBS) mechanism , 19 thus increasing the integrity of EU markets and enhancing their appeal for investors. In the same vein, the proposal introduces a possibility for ESMA to establish collaboration platforms, in particular for the purpose of monitoring wholesale commodity markets, to address concerns about market integrity and the good functioning of financial and, in particular, spot markets . Finally, the proposal seeks to make the sanctioning regime for MAR disclosure-related infringements more proportionate for SMEs to avoid discouraging smaller issuers from listing or remaining listed. The proposal also aims at alleviating the regulatory hurdles resulting from the application of the managers’ transactions, insider list and market sounding regimes while ensuring that these alleviations do not impair investor protection and market integrity. The creation of a CMOBS mechanism requires also targeted amendments to the MiFIR framework to specify that a competent authority can request order book data on an ongoing basis to a trading venue under its supervision, and to confer to ESMA the role to harmonise the format of the template used to store such data. The proposed targeted amendments aim to build the necessary conditions for structural improvements in EU public capital markets to occur over time. A more favourable regulatory regime would encourage the development of a more favourable ecosystem, contributing in a multi-faceted manner to the CMU objective of improving access to financing by companies. Furthermore, this proposal should be analysed in conjunction with other proposed and upcoming initiatives. The proposed amendments are part of a broader package of measures outlined in the CMU Action Plan, which aim to address other issues currently preventing companies from raising capital on public markets.
Revised version (Article 16 Obligations of competent authorities):
The competent authorities shall check that systematic internalisers comply with the conditions for order execution laid down in Article 15(1) and with the conditions for price improvement laid down in Article 15(2).
Article 17 Access to quotes
1. Systematic internalisers shall be allowed to decide, on the basis of their commercial policy and in an objective non-discriminatory way, the clients to whom they give access to their quotes. To that end there shall be clear standards for governing access to their quotes. Systematic internalisers may refuse to enter into or discontinue business relationships with clients on the basis of commercial considerations such as the client credit status, the counterparty risk and the final settlement of the transaction. 2. In order to limit the risk of exposure to multiple transactions from the same client, systematic internalisers shall be allowed to limit in a non-discriminatory way the number of transactions from the same client which they undertake to enter at the published conditions. They may, in a non-discriminatory way and in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2014/65//EU, limit the total number of transactions from different clients at the same time provided that this is allowable only where the number and/or volume of orders sought by clients considerably exceeds the norm. 3. In order to ensure the efficient valuation of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments and maximise the possibility for investment firms to obtain the best deal for their clients, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 specifying: (a) the criteria specifying when a quote is published on a regular and continuous basis and is easily accessible as referred to in Article 15(1) as well as the means by which investment firms may comply with their obligation to make public their quotes, which shall include the following possibilities: (i) through the facilities of any regulated market which has admitted the financial instrument in question to trading; (ii) through an APA; (iii) through proprietary arrangements; (a) the criteria specifying when a quote is published on a regular and continuous basis and is easily accessible as referred to in Article 15(1) as well as the means by which investment firms may comply with their obligation to make public their quotes, which shall include the following possibilities: (i) through the facilities of any regulated market which has admitted the financial instrument in question to trading; (ii) through an APA; (iii) through proprietary arrangements; (b) the criteria specifying those transactions where execution in several securities is part of one transaction or those orders that are subject to conditions other than current market price as referred to in Article 15(3); (c) the criteria specifying what can be considered as exceptional market conditions that allow for the withdrawal of quotes as well as the conditions for updating quotes as referred to in Article 15(1); (d) the criteria specifying when the number and/or volume of orders sought by clients considerably exceeds the norm as referred to in paragraph 2. (e) the criteria specifying when prices fall within a public range close to market conditions as referred to in Article 15(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for the proposal Directive 2014/65/EU (‘MiFID’) together with Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (‘MiFIR’) was adopted in the wake of the financial crisis. MiFID and MiFIR, collectively referred to as MiFID II, covers securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. The new framework reinforces and replaces the current MiFID framework. MiFID II extends the number of financial instruments covered by trading rules and ensures that trading takes place on regulated platforms. It introduces rules on high frequency trading. It improves the transparency and oversight of financial markets – including derivatives markets - and addresses the issue of price volatility in commodity derivatives. The new framework improves conditions for competition in the trading and clearing of financial instruments. Building on the rules already in place, the revised MiFID rules also strengthen the protection of investors by introducing robust organisational and conduct of business requirements. The MiFID II package consists of a Directive and a Regulation. Member States need to transpose the Directive by 3 July 2016. Both MiFID and MiFIR are scheduled to apply as of 3 January 2017. The purpose of the draft proposal is to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in the MIFID II package as a result of the technical implementation challenges met by the European Securities and Markets Authority ('ESMA'), national competent authorities ('NCAs') and stakeholders. These challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. During the legislative process, the very high level of complexity of the MiFID II package and the need for a significant number of implementing measures were recognised. To this end, a period of 30 months was foreseen between the adoption and the entry into application, instead of the usual 18-24 months. Despite this unusually long period, ESMA has made clear to the Commission that the technical implementing challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. If the date of entry into application remains unchanged, this would mean, in practice, that neither competent authorities, nor market participants, would be in a position to apply the new rules on 3 January 2017. This would lead to legal uncertainty and potential market disruption. In light of these exceptional circumstances and the particular technical implementation challenges faced by ESMA and the competent authorities in this specific case, the Commission deems it necessary to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in MIFID II. Such extension shall be strictly limited to what is necessary to allow the technical implementation work to be finalised. 1.2 The 'data' challenge ESMA have informed the Commission that neither they nor the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as a result of significant challenges in collecting the data that is necessary for the operation of the MiFID II rules. In order to ensure legal certainty and avoid potential market disruption, urgent action is needed to adjust the date of entry into application for MiFID II. The reasons for the urgency are linked to the need to establish new and extensive electronic data collection networks between trading venues, national regulators and ESMA. The new framework requires trading venues and systematic internalisers to provide competent authorities with financial instrument reference data that describes in a uniform manner the characteristics of every financial instrument subject to the scope of MiFID II. Additional data are also used for other purposes, in particular for the calculation of various liquidity and transparency thresholds used for on-venue trading of all financial instruments covered by MiFID as well as for positions reporting of commodity derivatives. In order to collect data in an efficient and harmonised manner, a new data collection infrastructure must be developed. This obliges ESMA, in conjunction with competent national authorities, to establish a Financial Instruments Reference Data System ('FIRDS'). FIRDS will need to cover the entire range of financial instruments that are included in the increased scope of MiFID II. In accomplishing this task, FIRDS will necessitate linking of data feeds between ESMA, NCAs and around 300 trading venues across the European Union. The vast majority of the new IT-systems underpinning FIRDS will need to be built from the ground, based on new parameters. The Commission recognises that as a result of the size and complexity of the data needed to be collected and processed for MiFID II to become operational, in particular for transaction reporting, transparency calculations and reporting of positions in commodity derivatives, neither stakeholders, such as trading platforms, nor NCAs nor ESMA are in a position to ensure that the necessary data collection infrastructures would be in place and become operational by 3 January 2017. Therefore, on 2 October 2015 ESMA informed the Commission that a delay in the technical implementation of MiFID II was unavoidable. 1.3. The scope of the proposal The absence of data has ramifications across multiple areas of MIFID II. As regards market regulation, it is clear that without the foundation of reference data (instrument ID) and the additional data infrastructures for transparency calculations and position reporting in place, it will not be possible to apply the majority of the market rules. In particular:  Transaction reporting : without reference data, there will be challenges to determine what instruments are within the scope. In addition, the necessary infrastructure for market participants to report to their competent authorities will not be available.  Transparency framework : the trade transparency rules for all financial instruments (equity as well as non-equity) cannot be established and applied. In addition, the calculations and thresholds for the liquidity assessment, waivers, deferred publication and, in the equity area, the double volume cap (which limits dark trading) cannot be established.  Commodity derivatives : in the absence of position reporting for commodity derivatives it will be very difficult to enforce position limits on such commodity derivative contracts. With no position reporting, there is a limited ability to effectively detect breaches of positon limits.  Microstructural regulation: many of the requirements in relation to algorithmic trading/high frequency trading are by their nature dependent on data. In particular, the key provisions on tick-size regime and the obligations in relation to market making obligations and schemes are also tailored on there being a liquid market as determined under the transparency framework. The investor protection rules, the conduct of business rules and certain associated organisational requirements under MIFID II will not be directly affected by the lack of data. The important exception is the rules on best execution , where the scope of the disclosure is designed by reference to there being a liquid market and other transparency concepts. For other investor protection rules, aside from issues relating to the definition of financial instruments or the scope of the legislation, data inter-linkages generally do not exist, as these rules directly concern distribution and not trading. It is, therefore, recognised that an alternative approach would be to extend the date of entry into application only for the parts of the legislation directly relating to data collection. However, after a careful analysis of that option, it appears that an extension for the whole package, including investor protection rules, as opposed to a staggered approach is preferable:  It avoids the risk of causing confusion and unnecessary costs that stakeholders would incur through a staggered implementation. Building various infrastructures simultaneously – as opposed to doing so in stages - would make the process more cost effective. For example, it avoids situations, where investment firms, involved in execution of orders, would have to set up organisational requirements/conduct rules in stages, which would be complicated, expensive and costly;  It avoids having to delineate between the areas that can be immediately implemented and those that cannot be, and, therefore, avoids the risk of causing unintended consequences which may not have been foreseen or sufficiently considered; and  It avoids the need for transitional rules, which by themselves would create new issues and divert resources of ESMA, NCAs and stakeholders from building the permanent framework. On the basis of the above considerations, extending the entry into application for the entire MiFID II rulebook is therefore necessary and justified. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 1.4. Length of the extension An extension of one year should provide sufficient and reasonable time for ESMA, NCAs and operators to put in place the infrastructure for data collection, reporting and the transparency threshold calculations. There are five steps in the implementation process: (1) business requirements (which in this case are the necessary regulatory technical standards/implementing technical standards), (2) specifications, (3) development (4) testing and (5) deployment. ESMA estimates that it should complete these steps in relation to the reference data, transparency calculations and position reporting systems by January 2018. This assumes that there is sufficient legal clarity on the final requirements under the relevant regulatory technical standards by mid-2016. On this basis, the draft proposal therefore extends the entry into application of the whole framework until 3 January 2018 by one year. The extension of entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. The Commission should adopt these measures in accordance with the procedure envisaged in order to allow the industry to set up and adjust internal systems to ensure compliance with new requirements on the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 17 Access to quotes):
1. Systematic internalisers shall be allowed to decide, on the basis of their commercial policy and in an objective non-discriminatory way, the clients to whom they give access to their quotes. To that end there shall be clear standards for governing access to their quotes. Systematic internalisers may refuse to enter into or discontinue business relationships with clients on the basis of commercial considerations such as the client credit status, the counterparty risk and the final settlement of the transaction. 2. In order to limit the risk of exposure to multiple transactions from the same client, systematic internalisers shall be allowed to limit in a non-discriminatory way the number of transactions from the same client which they undertake to enter at the published conditions. They may, in a non-discriminatory way and in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2014/65//EU, limit the total number of transactions from different clients at the same time provided that this is allowable only where the number and/or volume of orders sought by clients considerably exceeds the norm. 3. In order to ensure the efficient valuation of shares, depositary receipts, ETFs, certificates and other similar financial instruments and maximise the possibility for investment firms to obtain the best deal for their clients, the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 specifying: (a) the criteria specifying when a quote is published on a regular and continuous basis and is easily accessible as referred to in Article 15(1) as well as the means by which investment firms may comply with their obligation to make public their quotes, which shall include the following possibilities: (i) through the facilities of any regulated market which has admitted the financial instrument in question to trading; (ii) through an APA; (iii) through proprietary arrangements; (b) the criteria specifying those transactions where execution in several securities is part of one transaction or those orders that are subject to conditions other than current market price as referred to in Article 15(3); (c) the criteria specifying what can be considered as exceptional market conditions that allow for the withdrawal of quotes as well as the conditions for updating quotes as referred to in Article 15(1); (d) the criteria specifying when the number and/or volume of orders sought by clients considerably exceeds the norm as referred to in paragraph 2. (e) the criteria specifying when prices fall within a public range close to market conditions as referred to in Article 15(2).
Article 18 Obligation for systematic internalisers to make public firm quotes in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives
1. Investment firms shall make public firm quotes in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue for which they are systematic internalisers and for which there is a liquid market when the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) they are prompted for a quote by a client of the systematic internaliser; (b) they agree to provide a quote. 2. In relation to bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue for which there is not a liquid market, systematic internalisers shall disclose quotes to their clients on request if they agree to provide a quote. That obligation may be waived where the conditions specified in Article 9(1) are met. 3. Systematic internalisers may update their quotes at any time. They may withdraw their quotes under exceptional market conditions. 4. Member States shall require that firms that meet the definition of systematic internaliser notify their competent authority. Such notification shall be transmitted to ESMA. ESMA shall establish a list of all systematic internalisers in the Union. 5. Systematic internalisers shall make the firm quotes published in accordance with paragraph 1 available to their other clients. Notwithstanding, they shall be allowed to decide, on the basis of their commercial policy and in an objective non-discriminatory way, the clients to whom they give access to their quotes. To that end, systematic internalisers shall have in place clear standards for governing access to their quotes. Systematic internalisers may refuse to enter into or discontinue business relationships with clients on the basis of commercial considerations such as the client credit status, the counterparty risk and the final settlement of the transaction. 6. Systematic internalisers shall undertake to enter into transactions under the published conditions with any other client to whom the quote is made available in accordance with paragraph 5 when the quoted size is at or below the size specific to the financial instrument determined in accordance with Article 9(5)(d). Systematic internalisers shall not be subject to the obligation to publish a firm quote pursuant to paragraph 1 for financial instruments that fall below the threshold of liquidity determined in accordance with Article 9(4). 7. Systematic internalisers shall be allowed to establish non-discriminatory and transparent limits on the number of transactions they undertake to enter into with clients pursuant to any given quote. 8. The quotes published pursuant to paragraph 1 and 5 and those at or below the size referred to in paragraph 6 shall be made public in a manner which is easily accessible to other market participants on a reasonable commercial basis. 9. The quoted price or prices shall be such as to ensure that the systematic internaliser complies with its obligations under Article 27 of Directive 2014/65/EU, where applicable, and shall reflect prevailing market conditions in relation to prices at which transactions are concluded for the same or similar financial instruments on a trading venue. However, in justified cases, they may execute orders at a better price provided that the price falls within a public range close to market conditions. 10. Systematic internalisers shall not be subject to this Article when they deal in sizes above the size specific to the financial instrument determined in accordance with Article 9(5)(d).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. Reasons for the proposal Directive 2014/65/EU (‘MiFID’) together with Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (‘MiFIR’) was adopted in the wake of the financial crisis. MiFID and MiFIR, collectively referred to as MiFID II, covers securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. The new framework reinforces and replaces the current MiFID framework. MiFID II extends the number of financial instruments covered by trading rules and ensures that trading takes place on regulated platforms. It introduces rules on high frequency trading. It improves the transparency and oversight of financial markets – including derivatives markets - and addresses the issue of price volatility in commodity derivatives. The new framework improves conditions for competition in the trading and clearing of financial instruments. Building on the rules already in place, the revised MiFID rules also strengthen the protection of investors by introducing robust organisational and conduct of business requirements. The MiFID II package consists of a Directive and a Regulation. Member States need to transpose the Directive by 3 July 2016. Both MiFID and MiFIR are scheduled to apply as of 3 January 2017. The purpose of the draft proposal is to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in the MIFID II package as a result of the technical implementation challenges met by the European Securities and Markets Authority ('ESMA'), national competent authorities ('NCAs') and stakeholders. These challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. During the legislative process, the very high level of complexity of the MiFID II package and the need for a significant number of implementing measures were recognised. To this end, a period of 30 months was foreseen between the adoption and the entry into application, instead of the usual 18-24 months. Despite this unusually long period, ESMA has made clear to the Commission that the technical implementing challenges are of such magnitude that essential data infrastructures will not be in place in time for 3 January 2017. If the date of entry into application remains unchanged, this would mean, in practice, that neither competent authorities, nor market participants, would be in a position to apply the new rules on 3 January 2017. This would lead to legal uncertainty and potential market disruption. In light of these exceptional circumstances and the particular technical implementation challenges faced by ESMA and the competent authorities in this specific case, the Commission deems it necessary to extend the entry into application of both instruments that are comprised in MIFID II. Such extension shall be strictly limited to what is necessary to allow the technical implementation work to be finalised. 1.2 The 'data' challenge ESMA have informed the Commission that neither they nor the NCAs will be in a position to apply MiFID II as of 3 January 2017. This is as a result of significant challenges in collecting the data that is necessary for the operation of the MiFID II rules. In order to ensure legal certainty and avoid potential market disruption, urgent action is needed to adjust the date of entry into application for MiFID II. The reasons for the urgency are linked to the need to establish new and extensive electronic data collection networks between trading venues, national regulators and ESMA. The new framework requires trading venues and systematic internalisers to provide competent authorities with financial instrument reference data that describes in a uniform manner the characteristics of every financial instrument subject to the scope of MiFID II. Additional data are also used for other purposes, in particular for the calculation of various liquidity and transparency thresholds used for on-venue trading of all financial instruments covered by MiFID as well as for positions reporting of commodity derivatives. In order to collect data in an efficient and harmonised manner, a new data collection infrastructure must be developed. This obliges ESMA, in conjunction with competent national authorities, to establish a Financial Instruments Reference Data System ('FIRDS'). FIRDS will need to cover the entire range of financial instruments that are included in the increased scope of MiFID II. In accomplishing this task, FIRDS will necessitate linking of data feeds between ESMA, NCAs and around 300 trading venues across the European Union. The vast majority of the new IT-systems underpinning FIRDS will need to be built from the ground, based on new parameters. The Commission recognises that as a result of the size and complexity of the data needed to be collected and processed for MiFID II to become operational, in particular for transaction reporting, transparency calculations and reporting of positions in commodity derivatives, neither stakeholders, such as trading platforms, nor NCAs nor ESMA are in a position to ensure that the necessary data collection infrastructures would be in place and become operational by 3 January 2017. Therefore, on 2 October 2015 ESMA informed the Commission that a delay in the technical implementation of MiFID II was unavoidable. 1.3. The scope of the proposal The absence of data has ramifications across multiple areas of MIFID II. As regards market regulation, it is clear that without the foundation of reference data (instrument ID) and the additional data infrastructures for transparency calculations and position reporting in place, it will not be possible to apply the majority of the market rules. In particular:  Transaction reporting : without reference data, there will be challenges to determine what instruments are within the scope. In addition, the necessary infrastructure for market participants to report to their competent authorities will not be available.  Transparency framework : the trade transparency rules for all financial instruments (equity as well as non-equity) cannot be established and applied. In addition, the calculations and thresholds for the liquidity assessment, waivers, deferred publication and, in the equity area, the double volume cap (which limits dark trading) cannot be established.  Commodity derivatives : in the absence of position reporting for commodity derivatives it will be very difficult to enforce position limits on such commodity derivative contracts. With no position reporting, there is a limited ability to effectively detect breaches of positon limits.  Microstructural regulation: many of the requirements in relation to algorithmic trading/high frequency trading are by their nature dependent on data. In particular, the key provisions on tick-size regime and the obligations in relation to market making obligations and schemes are also tailored on there being a liquid market as determined under the transparency framework. The investor protection rules, the conduct of business rules and certain associated organisational requirements under MIFID II will not be directly affected by the lack of data. The important exception is the rules on best execution , where the scope of the disclosure is designed by reference to there being a liquid market and other transparency concepts. For other investor protection rules, aside from issues relating to the definition of financial instruments or the scope of the legislation, data inter-linkages generally do not exist, as these rules directly concern distribution and not trading. It is, therefore, recognised that an alternative approach would be to extend the date of entry into application only for the parts of the legislation directly relating to data collection. However, after a careful analysis of that option, it appears that an extension for the whole package, including investor protection rules, as opposed to a staggered approach is preferable:  It avoids the risk of causing confusion and unnecessary costs that stakeholders would incur through a staggered implementation. Building various infrastructures simultaneously – as opposed to doing so in stages - would make the process more cost effective. For example, it avoids situations, where investment firms, involved in execution of orders, would have to set up organisational requirements/conduct rules in stages, which would be complicated, expensive and costly;  It avoids having to delineate between the areas that can be immediately implemented and those that cannot be, and, therefore, avoids the risk of causing unintended consequences which may not have been foreseen or sufficiently considered; and  It avoids the need for transitional rules, which by themselves would create new issues and divert resources of ESMA, NCAs and stakeholders from building the permanent framework. On the basis of the above considerations, extending the entry into application for the entire MiFID II rulebook is therefore necessary and justified. Changing the date of applicability of MiFID II does however have consequences for the applicability of other legislation, in particular Regulation (EU) 596/2014 ('MAR') and Regulation (EU) 909/2014 ('CSDR'). The market abuse framework will apply to certain definitions and concepts of MiFID II. As MAR is set to enter into application on 3 July 2016, there is already a provision in it, which ensures that before the originally foreseen date of entry into application of MiFID II, concepts and rules of MiFID I will apply. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the originally foreseen date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify in MAR that the concepts and rules as set out in MiFID I should be used until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. MAR also refers to concepts that will be introduced by MiFID II, such as organised trading facilities ('OTFs'), small and medium-sized enterprises ('SME') growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon. MAR sets out that its provisions shall not apply to these concepts until the originally foreseen entry into application of MiFID II. It is therefore also necessary to clarify in MAR that provisions referring to OTFs, SME growth markets, emission allowances or auctioned products based thereon shall not apply until the new date of entry into application of MiFID II. The consequences for the CSDR are twofold. First, there are consequences for the application of the rules on settlement discipline to multilateral trading facilities ('MTFs') applying for registration as SME growth markets in accordance with Directive 2014/65/EU. Specifically, these rules allow MTFs meeting the criteria for an SME growth market under MiFID II to apply a longer extension period for the settlement of transactions whilst their registration as an SME growth market under MiFID II is still ongoing. Second, in order to have a clear and coherent legislative framework for trading and settlement, CSDR relies on many of the definitions and concepts of MiFID II. In order to ensure legal certainty for the period between the previous date of entry into application and the new date of entry into application, it is necessary to clarify that until the new date of entry into application, the rules set out in MiFID I should be used. 1.4. Length of the extension An extension of one year should provide sufficient and reasonable time for ESMA, NCAs and operators to put in place the infrastructure for data collection, reporting and the transparency threshold calculations. There are five steps in the implementation process: (1) business requirements (which in this case are the necessary regulatory technical standards/implementing technical standards), (2) specifications, (3) development (4) testing and (5) deployment. ESMA estimates that it should complete these steps in relation to the reference data, transparency calculations and position reporting systems by January 2018. This assumes that there is sufficient legal clarity on the final requirements under the relevant regulatory technical standards by mid-2016. On this basis, the draft proposal therefore extends the entry into application of the whole framework until 3 January 2018 by one year. The extension of entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should not impact adoption of delegated acts and technical standards under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. The Commission should adopt these measures in accordance with the procedure envisaged in order to allow the industry to set up and adjust internal systems to ensure compliance with new requirements on the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 .
Revised version (Article 18 Obligation for systematic internalisers to make public firm quotes in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives):
1. Investment firms shall make public firm quotes in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue for which they are systematic internalisers and for which there is a liquid market when the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) they are prompted for a quote by a client of the systematic internaliser; (b) they agree to provide a quote. 2. In relation to bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and derivatives traded on a trading venue for which there is not a liquid market, systematic internalisers shall disclose quotes to their clients on request if they agree to provide a quote. That obligation may be waived where the conditions specified in Article 9(1) are met. 3. Systematic internalisers may update their quotes at any time. They may withdraw their quotes under exceptional market conditions. 4. Member States shall require that firms that meet the definition of systematic internaliser notify their competent authority. Such notification shall be transmitted to ESMA. ESMA shall establish a list of all systematic internalisers in the Union. 5. Systematic internalisers shall make the firm quotes published in accordance with paragraph 1 available to their other clients. Notwithstanding, they shall be allowed to decide, on the basis of their commercial policy and in an objective non-discriminatory way, the clients to whom they give access to their quotes. To that end, systematic internalisers shall have in place clear standards for governing access to their quotes. Systematic internalisers may refuse to enter into or discontinue business relationships with clients on the basis of commercial considerations such as the client credit status, the counterparty risk and the final settlement of the transaction. 6. Systematic internalisers shall undertake to enter into transactions under the published conditions with any other client to whom the quote is made available in accordance with paragraph 5 when the quoted size is at or below the size specific to the financial instrument determined in accordance with Article 9(5)(d). Systematic internalisers shall not be subject to the obligation to publish a firm quote pursuant to paragraph 1 for financial instruments that fall below the threshold of liquidity determined in accordance with Article 9(4). 7. Systematic internalisers shall be allowed to establish non-discriminatory and transparent limits on the number of transactions they undertake to enter into with clients pursuant to any given quote. 8. The quotes published pursuant to paragraph 1 and 5 and those at or below the size referred to in paragraph 6 shall be made public in a manner which is easily accessible to other market participants on a reasonable commercial basis. 9. The quoted price or prices shall be such as to ensure that the systematic internaliser complies with its obligations under Article 27 of Directive 2014/65/EU, where applicable, and shall reflect prevailing market conditions in relation to prices at which transactions are concluded for the same or similar financial instruments on a trading venue. However, in justified cases, they may execute orders at a better price provided that the price falls within a public range close to market conditions. 10. Systematic internalisers shall not be subject to this Article when they deal in sizes above the size specific to the financial instrument determined in accordance with Article 9(5)(d). 11. In respect of a package order and without prejudice to paragraph 2, the obligations in this Article shall only apply to the package order as a whole and not to any component of the package order separately.