in the shadow of MiFID II, the revised UCITS Directive (UCITS V) is approaching: In March 2016, i.e. in less than 11 months, the new regulations must come into force in Germany.
In July 2013, the German legislator already introduced some investor-protecting provisions of the AIFM Directive also for UCITS. But there is still work to be done.
Particular attention should be paid to the discussion on depositary independence requirements. Capital management companies whose depositaries belong to the same group are threatened with trouble here. This is because the demand for the almost complete unbundling of the depositary and the capital management company under company law is not yet off the table.
With warm regards
In view of the extensive discussions surrounding the revised Financial Markets Directive MiFID 2, UCITS V has recently taken somewhat of a back seat. And this despite the fact that the new regulations of the UCITS Directive have to enter into force in the member states already on March 18, 2016, i.e. in about 11 months.
In the course of implementing the AIFM Directive, the German legislator has already introduced many investor-protecting provisions of the AIFM Directive, which are now also the subject of UCITS V, into the KAGB for UCITS as well. These include, for example, rules on the safekeeping of assets, control obligations of the depositary, outsourcing of custody tasks to a sub-custodian, and remuneration rules.
UCITS V will, however, require adjustments beyond this. In particular, the regulations on the depositary are affected here. The revised directive brings innovations for liability in the case of sub-custody. In the future, a contractual exclusion or limitation of liability will no longer be possible for the depositary in the case of sub-custody of UCITS assets. In this respect, UCITS investors are more strongly protected than investors in an AIF.
In addition, it remains to be seen what criteria the European Commission will impose as requirements for the independence of the depositary. Please also refer to the supplementary article further down in this issue.
Also new are the authorities’ expanded sanction options. Thereafter, sanctions may also be directed against individual persons of the management body or against any other person responsible for a breach of regulatory provisions. Violations that may be sanctioned include:
The UCITS V guideline can be found here.
Not for the first time in the history of the UCITS Directive, the question of the requirements for the independence of the depositary is raised. Most recently, in the context of the amendment of the Investment Act in 2007, the question was discussed whether the principle of independence between the capital management company and the depositary laid down in the UCITS Directive did not require that the depositary may not belong to the same group.
ESMA had raised this issue again in a consultation paper dated September 26, 2014, proposing, among other things, an almost complete unbundling of the capital management company and the depositary under company law. However, in the Final Report of November 28, 2014, ESMA had dropped this strict requirement again.
According to informed circles, the European Commission has now recently taken up the issue again in its deliberations on ESMA’s Final Report. It is reported that consideration is being given to re-examining all options available to preserve the independence of the depositary. However, it remains to be seen whether this will result in a return to the proposals presented by ESMA in the consultation paper. We will keep you up to date.
On March 26, 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) again published an updated set of “Questions and Answers” (Q&A) regarding the implementation of Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD).
This includes updated and new Q&A’s on reporting, notification requirements, calculation of leverage, additional own funds and the scope of the AIFMD.
Among other things, ESMA clarifies that an AIFM that already manages an AIF in another Member State does not have to make a completely new marketing notification for another AIF it intends to manage in that Member State. In such cases, it should be sufficient to add the new AIF to be managed to the original distribution notice.
Also on March 26, 2015, ESMA published an updated Q&A catalog on the application of the Key Investor Information Document (KIID) for UCITS. In it, ESMA makes clear that in the event of a merger of two UCITS, the past performance of the fund that is ceasing to exist may be carried forward if
In March 2015, the German Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), in consultation with the supreme tax authorities of the German states, published a letter on various questions of interpretation regarding Section 1 (1b) No. 3 InvStG.
In the letter, the BMF comments on the following topics, among others:
The interpretative letter is applicable for the first time to the fiscal year of an investment fund beginning after the publication of the letter.
You can find the BMF’s interpretative letter here.
On March 20, 2015, BaFin published a revised version of the FAQ on the distribution and acquisition of investment assets under the KAGB.
The following statements in particular are new:
You can find the FAQ of BaFin here.
© 2023 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.
KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.