Article 38 Access for third-country CCPs and trading venues
1. A trading venue established in a third country may request access to a CCP established in the Union only if the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with Article 28(4) relating to that third country. A CCP established in a third country may request access to a trading venue in the Union subject to that CCP being recognised under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 CCPs and trading venues established in third countries shall only be permitted to make use of the access rights in Articles 35 to 36 provided that the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 that the legal and supervisory framework of the third country is considered to provide for an effective equivalent system for permitting CCPs and trading venues authorised under foreign regimes access to CCPs and trading venues established in that third country. 2. CCPs and trading venues established in third countries may only request a licence and the access rights in accordance with Article 37 provided that the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article that the legal and supervisory framework of that third country is considered to provide for an effective equivalent system under which CCPs and trading venues authorised in foreign jurisdictions are permitted access on a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to: (a) relevant price and data feeds and information of composition, methodology and pricing of benchmarks for the purposes of clearing and trading; and (b) licences, from persons with proprietary rights to benchmarks established in that third country. 3. The Commission may, in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 51, adopt decisions determining that the legal and supervisory framework of a third country ensures that a trading venue and CCP authorised in that third country complies with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and which are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country. The legal and supervisory framework of a third country is considered equivalent where that framework fulfils all the following conditions: (a) trading venues in that third country are subject to authorisation and to effective supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis; (b) it provides for an effective equivalent system for permitting CCPs and trading venues authorised under foreign regimes access to CCPs and trading venues established in that third country; (c) the legal and supervisory framework of that third country provides for an effective equivalent system under which CCPs and trading venues authorised in foreign jurisdictions are permitted access on a fair reasonable and non discriminatory basis to: (i) relevant price and data feeds and information of composition, methodology and pricing of benchmarks for the purposes of clearing and trading; and (ii) licences, (c) the legal and supervisory framework of that third country provides for an effective equivalent system under which CCPs and trading venues authorised in foreign jurisdictions are permitted access on a fair reasonable and non discriminatory basis to:
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 38 Access for third-country CCPs and trading venues):
1. A trading venue established in a third country may request access to a CCP established in the Union only if the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with Article 28(4) relating to that third country. A CCP established in a third country may request access to a trading venue in the Union subject to that CCP being recognised under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 CCPs and trading venues established in third countries shall only be permitted to make use of the access rights in Articles 35 to 36 provided that the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 that the legal and supervisory framework of the third country is considered to provide for an effective equivalent system for permitting CCPs and trading venues authorised under foreign regimes access to CCPs and trading venues established in that third country. 2. CCPs and trading venues established in third countries may only request a licence and the access rights in accordance with Article 37 provided that the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article that the legal and supervisory framework of that third country is considered to provide for an effective equivalent system under which CCPs and trading venues authorised in foreign jurisdictions are permitted access on a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to: (a) relevant price and data feeds and information of composition, methodology and pricing of benchmarks for the purposes of clearing and trading; and (b) licences, from persons with proprietary rights to benchmarks established in that third country. 3. The Commission may, in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 51, adopt decisions determining that the legal and supervisory framework of a third country ensures that a trading venue and CCP authorised in that third country complies with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and which are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in that third country. The legal and supervisory framework of a third country is considered equivalent where that framework fulfils all the following conditions: (a) trading venues in that third country are subject to authorisation and to effective supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis; (b) it provides for an effective equivalent system for permitting CCPs and trading venues authorised under foreign regimes access to CCPs and trading venues established in that third country; (c) the legal and supervisory framework of that third country provides for an effective equivalent system under which CCPs and trading venues authorised in foreign jurisdictions are permitted access on a fair reasonable and non discriminatory basis to:
Article 39 Market monitoring
1. In accordance with Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall monitor the market for financial instruments which are marketed, distributed or sold in the Union. 2. In accordance with Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, EBA shall monitor the market for structured deposits which are marketed, distributed or sold in the Union. 3. Competent authorities shall monitor the market for financial instruments and structured deposits which are marketed, distributed or sold in or from their Member State.
Article 40 ESMA temporary intervention powers
1. In accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA may, where the conditions in paragraphs 2 and 3 are fulfilled, temporarily prohibit or restrict in the Union: (a) the marketing, distribution or sale of certain financial instruments or financial instruments with certain specified features; or (b) a type of financial activity or practice. A prohibition or restriction may apply in circumstances, or be subject to exceptions, specified by ESMA. 2. ESMA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the proposed action addresses a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union; (b) regulatory requirements under Union law that are applicable to the relevant financial instrument or activity do not address the threat; (c) a competent authority or competent authorities have not taken action to address the threat or the actions that have been taken do not adequately address the threat. Where the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are fulfilled, ESMA may impose the prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1 on a precautionary basis before a financial instrument has been marketed, distributed or sold to clients. 3. When taking action under this Article, ESMA shall ensure that the action: (a) does not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets or on investors that is disproportionate to the benefits of the action; (b) does not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage, and (c) has been taken after consulting the public bodies competent for the oversight, administration and regulation of physical agricultural markets under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, where the measure relates to agricultural commodities derivatives. Where a competent authority or competent authorities have taken a measure under Article 42, ESMA may take any of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 without issuing the opinion provided for in Article 43. 4. Before deciding to take any action under this Article, ESMA shall notify competent authorities of the action it proposes. 5. ESMA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to take any action under this Article. The notice shall specify details of the prohibition or restriction and specify a time after the publication of the notice from which the measures will take effect. A prohibition or restriction shall only apply to action taken after the measures take effect. 6. ESMA shall review a prohibition or restriction imposed under paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals and at least every three months. If the prohibition or restriction is not renewed after that three-month period it shall expire. 7. Action adopted by ESMA under this Article shall prevail over any previous action taken by a competent authority. 8. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account by ESMA in determining when there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union referred to in paragraph 2(a). Those criteria and factors shall include: (a) the degree of complexity of a financial instrument and the relation to the type of client to whom it is marketed and sold; (b) the size or the notional value of an issuance of financial instruments; (c) the degree of innovation of a financial instrument, an activity or a practice; (d) the leverage a financial instrument or practice provides.
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 40 ESMA temporary intervention powers):
A prohibition or restriction may apply in circumstances, or be subject to exceptions, specified by ESMA. 2. Where the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are fulfilled, ESMA may impose the prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1 on a precautionary basis before a financial instrument has been marketed, distributed or sold to clients. 3. Where a competent authority or competent authorities have taken a measure under Article 42, ESMA may take any of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 without issuing the opinion provided for in Article 43. 4. Before deciding to take any action under this Article, ESMA shall notify competent authorities of the action it proposes. 5. ESMA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to take any action under this Article. The notice shall specify details of the prohibition or restriction and specify a time after the publication of the notice from which the measures will take effect. A prohibition or restriction shall only apply to action taken after the measures take effect. 6. ESMA shall review a prohibition or restriction imposed under paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals, and at least every six months. Following at least two consecutive renewals and based on proper analysis in order to assess the impact on the consumer, ESMA may decide on the annual renewal of the prohibition or restriction. 7. Action adopted by ESMA under this Article shall prevail over any previous action taken by a competent authority. 8. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account by ESMA in determining when there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union referred to in paragraph 2(a). Those criteria and factors shall include: (a) the degree of complexity of a financial instrument and the relation to the type of client to whom it is marketed and sold; (b) the size or the notional value of an issuance of financial instruments; (c) the degree of innovation of a financial instrument, an activity or a practice; (d) the leverage a financial instrument or practice provides.
Article 41 EBA temporary intervention powers
1. In accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, EBA may where the conditions in paragraphs 2 and 3 are fulfilled, temporarily prohibit or restrict in the Union: (a) the marketing, distribution or sale of certain structured deposits or structured deposits with certain specified features; or (b) a type of financial activity or practice. A prohibition or restriction may apply in circumstances, or be subject to exceptions, specified by EBA. 2. EBA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the proposed action addresses a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union; (b) regulatory requirements under Union law that are applicable to the relevant structured deposit or activity do not address the threat; (c) a competent authority or competent authorities have not taken action to address the threat or the actions that have been taken do not adequately address the threat. Where the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are fulfilled, EBA may impose the prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1 on a precautionary basis before a structured deposit has been marketed, distributed or sold to clients. 3. When taking action under this Article, EBA shall ensure that the action: (a) does not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets or on investors that is disproportionate to the benefits of the action; and (b) does not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage. Where a competent authority or competent authorities have taken a measure under Article 42, EBA may take any of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 without issuing the opinion provided for in Article 43. 4. Before deciding to take any action under this Article, EBA shall notify competent authorities of the action it proposes. 5. EBA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to take any action under this Article. The notice shall specify details of the prohibition or restriction and specify a time after the publication of the notice from which the measures will take effect. A prohibition or restriction shall only apply to action taken after the measures take effect. 6. EBA shall review a prohibition or restriction imposed under paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals and at least every three months. If the prohibition or restriction is not renewed after that three-month period it shall expire. 7. Action adopted by EBA under this Article shall prevail over any previous action taken by a competent authority. 8. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 to specify criteria and factors to be taken into account by EBA in determining when there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets and to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union referred to in paragraph 2(a). Those criteria and factors shall include: (a) the degree of complexity of a structured deposit and the relation to the type of client to whom it is marketed and sold; (b) the size or the notional value of an issuance of structured deposits; (c) the degree of innovation of a structured deposit, an activity or a practice; (d) the leverage a structured deposit or practice provides.
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 41 EBA temporary intervention powers):
A prohibition or restriction may apply in circumstances, or be subject to exceptions, specified by EBA. 2. Where the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are fulfilled, EBA may impose the prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1 on a precautionary basis before a structured deposit has been marketed, distributed or sold to clients. 3. When taking action under this Article, EBA shall ensure that the action: (a) does not have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of financial markets or on investors that is disproportionate to the benefits of the action; and (b) does not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage. Where a competent authority or competent authorities have taken a measure under Article 42, EBA may take any of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 without issuing the opinion provided for in Article 43. 4. Before deciding to take any action under this Article, EBA shall notify competent authorities of the action it proposes. 5. EBA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to take any action under this Article. The notice shall specify details of the prohibition or restriction and specify a time after the publication of the notice from which the measures will take effect. A prohibition or restriction shall only apply to action taken after the measures take effect. 6. EBA shall review a prohibition or restriction imposed under paragraph 1 at appropriate intervals, and at least every six months. Following at least two consecutive renewals and based on proper analysis in order to assess the impact on the consumer, EBA may decide on the annual renewal of the prohibition or restriction. 7. Action adopted by EBA under this Article shall prevail over any previous action taken by a competent authority. 8. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 to specify criteria and factors to be taken into account by EBA in determining when there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets and to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system of the Union referred to in paragraph 2(a). Those criteria and factors shall include: (a) the degree of complexity of a structured deposit and the relation to the type of client to whom it is marketed and sold; (b) the size or the notional value of an issuance of structured deposits; (c) the degree of innovation of a structured deposit, an activity or a practice; (d) the leverage a structured deposit or practice provides.
Article 42 Product intervention by competent authorities
1. A competent authority may prohibit or restrict the following in or from that Member State: (a) the marketing, distribution or sale of certain financial instruments or structured deposits or financial instruments or structured deposits with certain specified features; or (b) a type of financial activity or practice. 2. A competent authority may take the action referred to in paragraph 1 if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that: (a) either (i) a financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice gives rise to significant investor protection concerns or poses a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of whole or part of the financial system within at least one Member State; or (ii) a derivative has a detrimental effect on the price formation mechanism in the underlying market; (a) either (i) a financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice gives rise to significant investor protection concerns or poses a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of whole or part of the financial system within at least one Member State; or (ii) a derivative has a detrimental effect on the price formation mechanism in the underlying market; (b) existing regulatory requirements under Union law applicable to the financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice do not sufficiently address the risks referred to in point (a) and the issue would not be better addressed by improved supervision or enforcement of existing requirements; (c) the action is proportionate taking into account the nature of the risks identified, the level of sophistication of investors or market participants concerned and the likely effect of the action on investors and market participants who may hold, use or benefit from the financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice; (d) the competent authority has properly consulted competent authorities in other Member States that may be significantly affected by the action; (e) the action does not have a discriminatory effect on services or activities provided from another Member State; and (f) it has properly consulted public bodies competent for the oversight, administration and regulation of physical agricultural markets under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, where a financial instrument or activity or practice poses a serious threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of the physical agricultural market. Where the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are fulfilled, the competent authority may impose the prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1 on a precautionary basis before a financial instrument or structured deposit has been marketed, distributed or sold to clients. A prohibition or restriction may apply in circumstances, or be subject to exceptions, specified by the competent authority. 3. The competent authority shall not impose a prohibition or restriction under this Article unless, not less than one month before the measure is intended to take effect, it has notified all other competent authorities and ESMA in writing or through another medium agreed between the authorities the details of: (a) the financial instrument or activity or practice to which the proposed action relates; (b) the precise nature of the proposed prohibition or restriction and when it is intended to take effect; and (c) the evidence upon which it has based its decision and upon which it is satisfied that each of the conditions in paragraph 2 are met. 4. In exceptional cases where the competent authority deems it necessary to take urgent action under this Article in order to prevent detriment arising from the financial instruments, structured deposits, practices or activities referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority may take action on a provisional basis with no less than 24 hours’ written notice, before the measure is intended to take effect, to all other competent authorities and ESMA or, for structured deposits, EBA, provided that all the criteria in this Article are met and that, in addition, it is clearly established that a one month notification period would not adequately address the specific concern or threat. The competent authority shall not take action on a provisional basis for a period exceeding three months. 5. The competent authority shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose any prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1. The notice shall specify details of the prohibition or restriction, a time after the publication of the notice from which the measures will take effect and the evidence upon which it is satisfied each of the conditions in paragraph 2 are met. The prohibition or restriction shall only apply in relation to actions taken after the publication of the notice. 6. The competent authority shall revoke a prohibition or restriction if the conditions in paragraph 2 no longer apply. 7. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account by competent authorities in determining when there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the of the financial system within at least one Member State referred to in paragraph 2(a). Those criteria and factors shall include: (a) the degree of complexity of a financial instrument or structured deposit and the relation to the type of client to whom it is marketed, distributed and sold; (b) the degree of innovation of a financial instrument or structured deposit, an activity or a practice; (c) the leverage a financial instrument or structured deposit or practice provides; (d) in relation to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets, the size or the notional value of an issuance of financial instruments or structured deposits.
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 42 Product intervention by competent authorities):
1. A competent authority may prohibit or restrict the following in or from that Member State: (a) the marketing, distribution or sale of certain financial instruments or structured deposits or financial instruments or structured deposits with certain specified features; or (b) a type of financial activity or practice. 2. A competent authority may take the action referred to in paragraph 1 if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that: (a) either (i) a financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice gives rise to significant investor protection concerns or poses a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of whole or part of the financial system within at least one Member State; or (ii) a derivative has a detrimental effect on the price formation mechanism in the underlying market; (b) existing regulatory requirements under Union law applicable to the financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice do not sufficiently address the risks referred to in point (a) and the issue would not be better addressed by improved supervision or enforcement of existing requirements; (c) the action is proportionate taking into account the nature of the risks identified, the level of sophistication of investors or market participants concerned and the likely effect of the action on investors and market participants who may hold, use or benefit from the financial instrument, structured deposit or activity or practice; (d) the competent authority has properly consulted competent authorities in other Member States that may be significantly affected by the action; (e) the action does not have a discriminatory effect on services or activities provided from another Member State; and (f) it has properly consulted public bodies competent for the oversight, administration and regulation of physical agricultural markets under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, where a financial instrument or activity or practice poses a serious threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of the physical agricultural market. Where the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are fulfilled, the competent authority may impose the prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1 on a precautionary basis before a financial instrument or structured deposit has been marketed, distributed or sold to clients. A prohibition or restriction may apply in circumstances, or be subject to exceptions, specified by the competent authority. 3. The competent authority shall not impose a prohibition or restriction under this Article unless, not less than one month before the measure is intended to take effect, it has notified all other competent authorities and ESMA in writing or through another medium agreed between the authorities the details of: (a) the financial instrument or activity or practice to which the proposed action relates; (b) the precise nature of the proposed prohibition or restriction and when it is intended to take effect; and (c) the evidence upon which it has based its decision and upon which it is satisfied that each of the conditions in paragraph 2 are met. 4. In exceptional cases where the competent authority deems it necessary to take urgent action under this Article in order to prevent detriment arising from the financial instruments, structured deposits, practices or activities referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authority may take action on a provisional basis with no less than 24 hours’ written notice, before the measure is intended to take effect, to all other competent authorities and ESMA or, for structured deposits, EBA, provided that all the criteria in this Article are met and that, in addition, it is clearly established that a one month notification period would not adequately address the specific concern or threat. The competent authority shall not take action on a provisional basis for a period exceeding three months. 5. The competent authority shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose any prohibition or restriction referred to in paragraph 1. The notice shall specify details of the prohibition or restriction, a time after the publication of the notice from which the measures will take effect and the evidence upon which it is satisfied each of the conditions in paragraph 2 are met. The prohibition or restriction shall only apply in relation to actions taken after the publication of the notice. 6. The competent authority shall revoke a prohibition or restriction if the conditions in paragraph 2 no longer apply. 7. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 50 specifying criteria and factors to be taken into account by competent authorities in determining when there is a significant investor protection concern or a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets or to the stability of the of the financial system within at least one Member State referred to in paragraph 2(a). Those criteria and factors shall include: (a) the degree of complexity of a financial instrument or structured deposit and the relation to the type of client to whom it is marketed, distributed and sold; (b) the degree of innovation of a financial instrument or structured deposit, an activity or a practice; (c) the leverage a financial instrument or structured deposit or practice provides; (d) in relation to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or commodity markets, the size or the notional value of an issuance of financial instruments or structured deposits.
Article 43 Coordination by ESMA and EBA
1. ESMA or, for structured deposits, EBA shall perform a facilitation and coordination role in relation to action taken by competent authorities under Article 42. In particular ESMA or, for structured deposits, EBA shall ensure that action taken by a competent authority is justified and proportionate and that where appropriate a consistent approach is taken by competent authorities. 2. After receiving notification under Article 42 of any action that is to be imposed under that Article, ESMA or, for structured deposits, EBA shall adopt an opinion on whether the prohibition or restriction is justified and proportionate. If ESMA or, for structured deposits, EBA considers that the taking of a measure by other competent authorities is necessary to address the risk, it shall state this in its opinion. The opinion shall be published on ESMA’s or, for structured deposits, EBA website. 3. Where a competent authority proposes to take, or takes, action contrary to an opinion adopted by ESMA or EBA under paragraph 2 or declines to take action contrary to such an opinion, it shall immediately publish on its website a notice fully explaining its reasons for so doing.
Article 44 Coordination of national position management measures and position limits by ESMA
1. ESMA shall perform a facilitation and coordination role in relation to measures taken by competent authorities pursuant to Article 69(2)(o) and (p) of Directive 2014/65/EU. In particular, ESMA shall ensure that a consistent approach is taken by competent authorities with regard to when those powers are exercised, the nature and scope of the measures imposed, and the duration and follow-up of any measures. 2. After receiving notification of any measure under Article 79(5) of Directive 2014/65/EU, ESMA shall record the measure and the reasons therefor. In relation to measures taken pursuant to Article 69(2)(o) or (p) of Directive 2014/65/EU, it shall maintain and publish on its website a database with summaries of the measures in force including details of the person concerned, the applicable financial instruments, any limits on the size of positions the persons can hold at all times, any exemptions thereto granted in accordance with Article 57 of Directive 2014/65/EU, and the reasons therefor.
Article 45 Position management powers of ESMA
1. In accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall, where both conditions in paragraph 2 are satisfied, take one or more of the following measures: (a) request from any person all relevant information regarding the size and purpose of a position or exposure entered into via a derivative; (b) after analysing the information obtained in accordance with point (a), require any such person to reduce the size of or to eliminate the position or exposure in accordance with the delegated act referred to in paragraph 10(b); (c) as a last resort, limit the ability of a person from entering into a commodity derivative. 2. ESMA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if both of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the measures listed in paragraph 1 address a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets, including commodity derivative markets in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 57(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU and including in relation to delivery arrangements for physical commodities, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union; (b) a competent authority or competent authorities have not taken measures to address the threat or the measures taken do not sufficiently address the threat; ESMA shall perform its assessment of the fulfilment of the conditions referred to in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with the criteria and factors provided for in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 10(a) of this Article. 3. When taking measures referred to in paragraph 1 ESMA shall ensure that the measure: (a) significantly addresses the threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets, including commodity derivative markets in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 57(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU and including in relation to delivery arrangements for physical commodities, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union or significantly improve the ability of competent authorities to monitor the threat as measured in accordance with the criteria and factors provided for in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 10(a) of this Article; (b) does not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage as measured in accordance with paragraph 10(c) of this Article; (c) does not have any of the following detrimental effects on the efficiency of financial markets that is disproportionate to the benefits of the measure: reducing liquidity in those markets, restraining the conditions for reducing risks directly related to the commercial activity of a non-financial counterparty, or creating uncertainty for market participants. ESMA shall consult the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators established under Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 29 ) before taking any measures related to wholesale energy products. ESMA shall consult the public bodies competent for the oversight, administration and regulation of physical agricultural markets under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, before taking any measure related to agricultural commodity derivatives. 4. Before deciding to undertake or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1, ESMA shall notify relevant competent authorities of the measure it proposes. In the case of a request under points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 the notification shall include the identity of the person or persons to whom it was addressed and the details and reasons therefor. In the event of a measure under paragraph 1(c) the notification shall include details of the person concerned, the applicable financial instruments, the relevant quantitative measures such as the maximum size of a position the person in question can enter into, and the reasons therefor. 5. The notification shall be made not less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect or to be renewed. In exceptional circumstances, ESMA may make the notification less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect where it is not possible to give 24 hours notice. 6. ESMA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1(c). The notice shall include details on the person concerned, the applicable financial instruments, the relevant quantitative measures such as the maximum size of a position the person in question can enter into, and the reasons therefor. 7. A measure referred to in paragraph 1(c) shall take effect when the notice is published or at a time specified in the notice that is after its publication and shall only apply to a transaction entered into after the measure takes effect. 8. ESMA shall review its measures referred to in paragraph 1(c) at appropriate intervals and at least every three months. If a measure is not renewed after that three month period, it shall automatically expire. Paragraphs 2 to 8 shall also apply to a renewal of measures. 9. A measure adopted by ESMA under this Article shall prevail over any previous measure taken by a competent authority under Article 69(2)(o) or (p) of Directive 2014/65/EU. 10. The Commission shall adopt in accordance with Article 50 delegated acts to specify criteria and factors to determine: (a) the existence of a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets, including commodity derivative markets in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 57(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU and including in relation to delivery arrangements for physical commodities, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union as referred to in paragraph 2(a) taking account of the degree to which positions are used to hedge positions in physical commodities or commodity contracts and the degree to which prices in underlying markets are set by reference to the prices of commodity derivatives; (b) the appropriate reduction of a position or exposure entered into via a derivative referred to in paragraph 1(b) of this Article; (c) the situations where a risk of regulatory arbitrage as referred to in paragraph 3(b) of this Article could arise. Those criteria and factors shall take into account the regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 57(3) of Directive 2014/65/EU and shall differentiate between situations where ESMA takes action because a competent authority has failed to act and those where ESMA addresses an additional risk which the competent authority is not able to sufficiently address pursuant to Article 69(2)(j) or (o) of Directive 2014/65/EU.
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 45 Position management powers of ESMA):
1. In accordance with Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, ESMA shall, where both conditions in paragraph 2 are satisfied, take one or more of the following measures: (a) request from any person all relevant information regarding the size and purpose of a position or exposure entered into via a derivative; after analysing the information obtained in accordance with point (a), require any such person to reduce the size of or to eliminate the position or exposure in accordance with the delegated act referred to in paragraph 10(b); (c) as a last resort, limit the ability of a person from entering into a commodity derivative. 2. ESMA shall take a decision under paragraph 1 only if both of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the measures listed in paragraph 1 address a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets, including commodity derivative markets in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 57(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU and including in relation to delivery arrangements for physical commodities, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union; (b) a competent authority or competent authorities have not taken measures to address the threat or the measures taken do not sufficiently address the threat; 3. When taking measures referred to in paragraph 1 ESMA shall ensure that the measure: significantly addresses the threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets, including commodity derivative markets in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 57(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU and including in relation to delivery arrangements for physical commodities, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union or significantly improve the ability of competent authorities to monitor the threat as measured in accordance with the criteria and factors provided for in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 10(a) of this Article; (b) does not create a risk of regulatory arbitrage as measured in accordance with paragraph 10(c) of this Article; (c) does not have any of the following detrimental effects on the efficiency of financial markets that is disproportionate to the benefits of the measure: reducing liquidity in those markets, restraining the conditions for reducing risks directly related to the commercial activity of a non-financial counterparty, or creating uncertainty for market participants. ESMA shall consult the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators established under Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 12 ) before taking any measures related to wholesale energy products. ESMA shall consult the public bodies competent for the oversight, administration and regulation of physical agricultural markets under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, before taking any measure related to agricultural commodity derivatives. 5. The notification shall be made not less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect or to be renewed. In exceptional circumstances, ESMA may make the notification less than 24 hours before the measure is intended to take effect where it is not possible to give 24 hours notice. 6. ESMA shall publish on its website notice of any decision to impose or renew any measure referred to in paragraph 1(c). The notice shall include details on the person concerned, the applicable financial instruments, the relevant quantitative measures such as the maximum size of a position the person in question can enter into, and the reasons therefor. 7. A measure referred to in paragraph 1(c) shall take effect when the notice is published or at a time specified in the notice that is after its publication and shall only apply to a transaction entered into after the measure takes effect. 8. ESMA shall review its measures referred to in paragraph 1(c) at appropriate intervals and at least every three months. If a measure is not renewed after that three month period, it shall automatically expire. Paragraphs 2 to 8 shall also apply to a renewal of measures. 10. The Commission shall adopt in accordance with Article 50 delegated acts to specify criteria and factors to determine: the existence of a threat to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets, including commodity derivative markets in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 57(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU and including in relation to delivery arrangements for physical commodities, or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union as referred to in paragraph 2(a) taking account of the degree to which positions are used to hedge positions in physical commodities or commodity contracts and the degree to which prices in underlying markets are set by reference to the prices of commodity derivatives; (b) the appropriate reduction of a position or exposure entered into via a derivative referred to in paragraph 1(b) of this Article; (c) the situations where a risk of regulatory arbitrage as referred to in paragraph 3(b) of this Article could arise. Those criteria and factors shall take into account the regulatory technical standards referred to in Article 57(3) of Directive 2014/65/EU and shall differentiate between situations where ESMA takes action because a competent authority has failed to act and those where ESMA addresses an additional risk which the competent authority is not able to sufficiently address pursuant to Article 69(2)(j) or (o) of Directive 2014/65/EU.
Article 46 General provisions
1. A third-country firm may provide investment services or perform investment activities with or without any ancillary services to eligible counterparties and to professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU established throughout the Union without the establishment of a branch where it is registered in the register of third-country firms kept by ESMA in accordance with Article 47. 2. ESMA shall register a third-country firm that has applied for the provision of investment services or performance of activities throughout the Union in accordance with paragraph 1 only where the following conditions are met: (a) the Commission has adopted a decision in accordance with Article 47(1); (b) the firm is authorised in the jurisdiction where its head office is established to provide the investment services or activities to be provided in the Union and it is subject to effective supervision and enforcement ensuring a full compliance with the requirements applicable in that third country; (c) cooperation arrangements have been established pursuant to Article 47(2). 3. Where a third-country firm is registered in accordance with this Article, Member States shall not impose any additional requirements on the third-country firm in respect of matters covered by this Regulation or by Directive 2014/65/EU and shall not treat third-country firms more favourably than Union firms. 4. The third-country firm referred to in paragraph 1 shall submit its application to ESMA after the adoption by the Commission of the decision referred to in Article 47 determining that the legal and supervisory framework of the third country in which the third-country firm is authorised is equivalent to the requirements described in Article 47(1). The applicant third-country firm shall provide ESMA with all information necessary for its registration. Within 30 working days of receipt of the application, ESMA shall assess whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, ESMA shall set a deadline by which the applicant third-country firm is to provide additional information. The registration decision shall be based on the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Within 180 working days of the submission of a complete application, ESMA shall inform the applicant third-country firm in writing with a fully reasoned explanation whether the registration has been granted or refused. Member States may allow third-country firms to provide investment services or perform investment activities together with ancillary services to eligible counterparties and professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU in their territories in accordance with national regimes in the absence of the Commission decision in accordance with Article 47(1) or where such decision is no longer in effect. 5. Third-country firms providing services in accordance with this Article shall inform clients established in the Union, before the provision of any investment services, that they are not allowed to provide services to clients other than eligible counterparties and professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU and that they are not subject to supervision in the Union. They shall indicate the name and the address of the competent authority responsible for supervision in the third country. The information in the first subparagraph shall be provided in writing and in a prominent way. Member States shall ensure that where an eligible counterparty or professional client within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU established or situated in the Union initiates at its own exclusive initiative the provision of an investment service or activity by a third-country firm, this Article does not apply to the provision of that service or activity by the third-country firm to that person including a relationship specifically related to the provision of that service or activity. An initiative by such clients shall not entitle the third-country firm to market new categories of investment product or investment service to that individual. 6. Third-country firms providing services or performing activities in accordance with this Article shall, before providing any service or performing any activity in relation to a client established in the Union, offer to submit any disputes relating to those services or activities to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitral tribunal in a Member State. 7. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information that the applicant third-country firm shall provide to ESMA in its application for registration in accordance with paragraph 4 and the format of information to be provided in accordance with paragraph 5. 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 46 General provisions):
1. A third-country firm may provide investment services or perform investment activities with or without any ancillary services to eligible counterparties and to professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU established throughout the Union without the establishment of a branch where it is registered in the register of third-country firms kept by ESMA in accordance with Article 47. 3. Where a third-country firm is registered in accordance with this Article, Member States shall not impose any additional requirements on the third-country firm in respect of matters covered by this Regulation or by Directive 2014/65/EU and shall not treat third-country firms more favourably than Union firms. 4. The third-country firm referred to in paragraph 1 shall submit its application to ESMA after the adoption by the Commission of the decision referred to in Article 47 determining that the legal and supervisory framework of the third country in which the third-country firm is authorised is equivalent to the requirements described in Article 47(1). The applicant third-country firm shall provide ESMA with all information necessary for its registration. Within 30 working days of receipt of the application, ESMA shall assess whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, ESMA shall set a deadline by which the applicant third-country firm is to provide additional information. The registration decision shall be based on the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Within 180 working days of the submission of a complete application, ESMA shall inform the applicant third-country firm in writing with a fully reasoned explanation whether the registration has been granted or refused. Member States may allow third‐country firms to provide investment services to, or to perform investment activities together with ancillary services for, eligible counterparties and professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU in their territories in accordance with national regimes where no Commission decision in accordance with Article 47(1) has been adopted or where such a decision has been adopted but either is no longer in effect or does not cover the services or activities concerned. 5. Third-country firms providing services in accordance with this Article shall inform clients established in the Union, before the provision of any investment services, that they are not allowed to provide services to clients other than eligible counterparties and professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU and that they are not subject to supervision in the Union. They shall indicate the name and the address of the competent authority responsible for supervision in the third country. The information in the first subparagraph shall be provided in writing and in a prominent way. Member States shall ensure that where an eligible counterparty or professional client within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU established or situated in the Union initiates at its own exclusive initiative the provision of an investment service or activity by a third‐country firm, this Article does not apply to the provision of that service or activity by the third‐country firm to that person, including a relationship specifically related to the provision of that service or activity. Without prejudice to intragroup relationships, where a third‐country firm, including through an entity acting on its behalf or having close links with such third‐country firm or any other person acting on behalf of such entity, solicits clients or potential clients in the Union, it shall not be deemed to be a service provided at the own exclusive initiative of the client. An initiative by such clients shall not entitle the third‐country firm to market new categories of investment products or investment services to that individual. 6. Third-country firms providing services or performing activities in accordance with this Article shall, before providing any service or performing any activity in relation to a client established in the Union, offer to submit any disputes relating to those services or activities to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitral tribunal in a Member State. 6a. Third‐country firms providing services or performing activities in accordance with this Article shall, on an annual basis, inform ESMA of the following: (a) the scale and scope of the services and activities carried out by the firms in the Union, including the geographical distribution across Member States; (b) for firms performing the activity referred to in point (3) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU, their monthly minimum, average and maximum exposure to EU counterparties; (c) for firms providing services referred to in point (6) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU, the total value of financial instruments originating from EU counterparties underwritten or placed on a firm commitment basis over the previous 12 months; (d) the turnover and the aggregated value of the assets corresponding to the services and activities referred to in point (a); (e) whether investor protection arrangements have been taken, and a detailed description thereof; (f) the risk management policy and arrangements applied by the firm to the carrying out of the services and activities referred to in point (a); (g) the governance arrangements, including key function holders for the activities of the firm in the Union; (h) any other information necessary to enable ESMA or the competent authorities to carry out their tasks in accordance with this Regulation. ESMA shall communicate the information received in accordance with this paragraph to the competent authorities of the Member States where a third‐country firm provides investment services or performs investment activities in accordance with this Article. Where necessary for the accomplishment of the tasks of ESMA or the competent authorities in accordance with this Regulation, ESMA may, including upon the request of the competent authority of the Member States where a third‐country firm provides investment services or performs investment activities in accordance with this Article, ask third‐country firms providing services or performing activities in accordance with this Article to provide any further information in respect of their operations. 6b. Where a third‐country firm provides services or performs activities in accordance with this Article, it shall keep, at the disposal of ESMA, the data relating to all orders and all transactions in the Union in financial instruments which they have carried out, whether on own account or on behalf of a client, for a period of five years. Upon the request of the competent authority of a Member State, where a third‐country firm provides investment services or performs investment activities in accordance with this Article, ESMA shall access the relevant data kept at its disposal in accordance with the first subparagraph and shall make that data available to the requesting competent authority. 6c. Where a third‐country firm does not cooperate in an investigation or an on‐site inspection carried out in accordance with Article 47(2), or where it does not comply with a request from ESMA in accordance with paragraph 6a or 6b of this Article in due time and in a proper manner, ESMA may withdraw its registration or temporarily prohibit or restrict its activities in accordance with Article 49. 7. ESMA, in consultation with EBA, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards to specify the information that the applicant third-country firm is to provide in the application for registration referred to in paragraph 4 and the information to be reported in accordance with paragraph 6a. ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 26 September 2020. Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. 8. ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards to specify the format in which the application for registration referred to in paragraph 4 is to be submitted and the information referred to in paragraph 6a is to be reported. ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by 26 September 2020. Power is conferred on the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
Article 47 Equivalence decision
1. The Commission may adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 51(2) in relation to a third country stating that the legal and supervisory arrangements of that third country ensure that firms authorised in that third country comply with legally binding prudential and business conduct requirements which have equivalent effect to the requirements set out in this Regulation, in Directive 2013/36/EU and in Directive 2014/65/EU and in the implementing measures adopted under this Regulation and under those Directives and that the legal framework of that third country provides for an effective equivalent system for the recognition of investment firms authorised under third-country legal regimes. The prudential and business conduct framework of a third country may be considered to have equivalent effect where that framework fulfils all the following conditions: (a) firms providing investment services and activities in that third country are subject to authorisation and to effective supervision and enforcement on an ongoing basis; (b) firms providing investment services and activities in that third country are subject to sufficient capital requirements and appropriate requirements applicable to shareholders and members of their management body; (c) firms providing investment services and activities are subject to adequate organisational requirements in the area of internal control functions; (d) firms providing investment services and activities are subject to appropriate conduct of business rules; (e) it ensures market transparency and integrity by preventing market abuse in the form of insider dealing and market manipulation 2. ESMA shall establish cooperation arrangements with the relevant competent authorities of third countries whose legal and supervisory frameworks have been recognised as effectively equivalent in accordance with paragraph 1. Such arrangements shall specify at least: (a) the mechanism for the exchange of information between ESMA and the competent authorities of third countries concerned, including access to all information regarding the non-Union firms authorised in third countries that is requested by ESMA; (b) the mechanism for prompt notification to ESMA where a third-country competent authority deems that a third-country firm that it is supervising and ESMA has registered in the register provided for in Article 48 infringes the conditions of its authorisation or other law to which it is obliged to adhere; (c) the procedures concerning the coordination of supervisory activities including, where appropriate, on-site inspections. 3. A third-country firm established in a country whose legal and supervisory framework has been recognised to be effectively equivalent in accordance with paragraph 1 and is authorised in accordance with Article 39 of Directive 2014/65/EU shall be able to provide the services and activities covered under the authorisation to eligible counterparties and professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU in other Member States of the Union without the establishment of new branches. For that purpose, it shall comply with the information requirements for the cross-border provision of services and activities in Article 34 of Directive 2014/65/EU. The branch shall remain subject to the supervision of the Member State where the branch is established in accordance with Article 39 of Directive 2014/65/EU. However, and without prejudice to the obligations to cooperate laid down in Directive 2014/65/EU, the competent authority of the Member State where the branch is established and the competent authority of the host Member State may establish proportionate cooperation agreements in order to ensure that the branch of the third-country firm providing investment services within the Union delivers the appropriate level of investor protection. 4. A third-country firm may no longer use the rights under Article 46(1) where the Commission adopts a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 51(2) withdrawing its decision under paragraph 1 of this Article in relation to that third country.
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 47 Equivalence decision):
3. A third-country firm established in a country whose legal and supervisory framework has been recognised to be effectively equivalent in accordance with paragraph 1, and which is authorised in accordance with Article 39 of Directive 2014/65/EU shall be able to provide the services and activities covered under the authorisation to eligible counterparties and professional clients within the meaning of Section I of Annex II to Directive 2014/65/EU in other Member States of the Union without the establishment of new branches. For that purpose, it shall comply with the information requirements for the cross-border provision of services and activities in Article 34 of Directive 2014/65/EU. The branch shall remain subject to the supervision of the Member State where the branch is established in accordance with Article 39 of Directive 2014/65/EU. However, and without prejudice to the obligations to cooperate laid down in Directive 2014/65/EU, the competent authority of the Member State where the branch is established and the competent authority of the host Member State may establish proportionate cooperation agreements in order to ensure that the branch of the third-country firm providing investment services within the Union delivers the appropriate level of investor protection. 4. A third-country firm may no longer use the rights under Article 46(1) where the Commission adopts a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 51(2) withdrawing its decision under paragraph 1 of this Article in relation to that third country. 5. ESMA shall monitor the regulatory and supervisory developments, the enforcement practices and other relevant market developments in third countries for which equivalence decisions have been adopted by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1 in order to verify that the conditions on the basis of which those decisions have been taken are still fulfilled. ESMA shall submit a confidential report on its findings to the Commission on an annual basis. Where considered appropriate by ESMA, ESMA may consult EBA with regard to the report. The report shall also reflect the trends observed on the basis of the data collected under Article 46(6a), in particular as regards firms providing services or performing the activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU. 6. The Commission shall, on the basis of the report referred to in paragraph 5, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council at least on an annual basis. The report shall include a list of the equivalence decisions taken or withdrawn by the Commission in the reporting year, as well as any measures taken by ESMA pursuant to Article 49, and provide the rationale for those decisions and measures. The Commission report shall include information on the monitoring of the regulatory and supervisory developments, the enforcement practices and other relevant market developments in third countries for which equivalence decisions have been adopted. It shall also take stock of how the cross‐border provision of investment services by third‐country firms has evolved in general and in particular as regards the services and activities referred to in points (3) and (6) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU. In due course, the report shall also include information concerning ongoing equivalence assessments that the Commission is undertaking in relation to a third country.
Article 48 Register
ESMA shall keep a register of the third-country firms allowed to provide investment services or perform investment activities in the Union in accordance with Article 46. The register shall be publicly accessible on the website of ESMA and shall contain information on the services or activities which the third-country firms are permitted to provide or perform and the reference of the competent authority responsible for their supervision in the third country.