Absolutely Insufferably Fundamentally Materially Defective (the "AIFMD")

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Absolutely Insufferably Fundamentally Materially Defective (the "AIFMD")"

Norah McCarthy
6 years ago
Views:

1 Ashurst London January 2015 Absolutely Insufferably Fundamentally Materially Defective (the "AIFMD") By Jake Green, Senior Associate We have been considering writing an article along these lines for around a year or so. However, every time that we were about to put pen to paper we were stopped short by either something (AIFMD related) even more absurd than what we had previously seen occurring, or a lull in time where we (mistakenly) believed that things were finally coming good. Alas, it is now the start of 2015 and the "good" has not come and therefore, in the spirit of sharing, this article has finally been written. Please note the purpose of this article (rant?) may be viewed as twofold: (1) we simply needed to get some frustrations off our chest (and find out whether we are a lone voice in the crowd); and (2) to give the industry some comfort that to some extent complying with the AIFMD is extremely difficult and at times a "finger in the air job". Accordingly, we hope that this article is read in the spirit in which it is meant. It is not intended to beatup ESMA or indeed any local regulators but merely to highlight quite how difficult it is to implement directives such as this in a short time frame and that some emergency repair work may be needed. A bit of background To recap, the AIFMD (The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive) officially came into force on the 22 July For all intents and purposes (and as a great over simplification) there was a one year transitional period up to 22 July 2014 where the AIFMD could have perhaps been viewed as being only softly in place. However, since 22 July 2014 the AIFMD must be complied with in the EEA and broadly requires that: European fund managers are regulated under (and comply fully with) the AIFMD; and non-european managers that want to "market" their funds into the EEA comply with the disclosure and transparency requirements of the directive. The straw that broke the camel's back The following anecdote might be the reason why we finally "broke" and wrote this article. On 9th January 2015 ESMA published a revised version of its "Questions and Answers" in respect of the application of the AIFMD (ESMA/2015/11). This is generally a very helpful publication. However, at question 50 ESMA responds to a query on how an AIFM should report information in relation to subscriptions and redemptions over the reporting period. The answer is simple: "AIFMs should report the value of subscription and redemption orders and not the number of subscription and redemption orders". On the face of it this is a very sensible answer. However, ESMA's response comes some time after certain managers have been required to report information to regulators, not always in this way. Further, we know that ESMA itself had previously told some fund managers who had gone out of their way to ask the very same question that the redemptions and subscriptions should detail the number of subscriptions/redemptions rather than the dollar amount. Confused? Many are. Below we have highlighted some of our other favourite nits to pick in relation to the AIFMD. The EU "marketing passport" The marketing passport is probably the most positive aspect of the AIFMD. It allows a European AUSTRALIA BELGIUM CHINA FRANCE GERMANY HONG KONG SAR INDONESIA (ASSOCIATED OFFICE) ITALY JAPAN PAPUA NEW GUINEA SAUDI ARABIA (ASSOCIATED OFFICE) SINGAPORE SPAIN SWEDEN UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2 fund manager who manages a European fund to market this fund into other EEA states to professional investors by simply filling in a passporting form and sending it to their local regulator who will onwardly submit such a request to the other relevant EEA regulators. The beauty of the passport is that it means that an AIFMD regulated fund manager need only think about complying with the AIFMD rules (as implemented in its local jurisdiction) in order to be free to market into the rest of Europe (avoiding the need to take advice in each jurisdiction and/or complying with various restrictive private placement regimes). So far, so good. It appears however that the AMF (the French regulator) has gold plated the passport requirement (and note that there are no provisions within the AIFMD that allow this requirement to be gold plated) by requiring that a non-french EEA AIFM that wishes to market a fund into France (via a passport) must appoint a centralising agent/correspondent in order to do so. Such an entity must be domiciled in France. This requirement has therefore lead to confusion and inefficiencies in relation to operating the passport. ESMA has remained silent on whether they consider this permissible under the AIFMD. More importantly, if measures such as this are allowed it renders the whole idea of a cross border marketing passport (and indeed opening up such a passport to non- European managers) as practically pointless. The definition of "marketing" under the AIFMD "Marketing" is defined under the AIFMD as "a direct or indirect offering or placement at the initiative of the AIFM or on behalf of the AIFM of units or shares of an AIF it manages to or with investors domiciled or with a registered office in the union". In our view there are therefore two central strands to the definition of marketing under the AIFMD; it must be an offer or placement; and the offer must be by or on behalf of the AIFM. Both of these strands make sense. If a fund manager is not directly offering a fund (but rather talking about its fund manager capabilities as a whole, as an example) then it is surely not marketing (offering) a fund. Further, it must be possible to talk about or detail a fund without doing so meaning that there has been an "offer" made in relation to such a fund. To stress this point, if someone with no connection to a fund manager recommends a fund to their client (and such a person has, for example, an advisory relationship with its client) then it cannot be said that in doing so that person is making an offer on behalf of the AIFM (it has nothing to do with the AIFM and is simply offering services in its underlying clients' best interest). However, it is not quite so simple. Accordingly, the points below highlight our understanding of the different approaches to marketing in certain member states: The UK adopts a literal interpretation of the AIFMD definitions. Therefore, (and see for example related FCA PERG guidance) draft documentation is unlikely to fall within the meaning of offer, nor are documents that cannot be used by a potential investor to make an investment in an AIF; the Dutch adopt a similar approach to the UK position. However, there is no local guidance as to the meaning of marketing or pre-marketing in Holland. In Holland, provided there is no offer, something is unlikely (but this is not definite) to constitute marketing; we are not aware of any guidance issued in Ireland on what "marketing" or reverse solicitation mean under the AIFMD. However, the good news is that we understand that the Irish central bank is adopting a sensible approach (and/or following what the FCA (in the UK) does); the German approach is perhaps the most scientific. Broadly speaking, providing that no fund exists or is "marketable" any communications in relation to such are unlikely to constitute marketing. However, the flip side of this is that as soon as a fund does exist (and is therefore "marketable") any communications that mention the fund are likely to constitute marketing under the directive (no matter who has made them, how they are made, or in what capacity they are acting); the Swedish approach is perhaps the most interesting. Sweden has adopted a far wider definition of marketing than what is detailed above. [Crudely put, this article probably constitutes us marketing several funds into Sweden!] France. Again there is no defined term as to what constitutes marketing in France. However on different occasions the AMF has defined marketing as a presentation of a financial instrument by different means with a view to encouraging a potential investor to subscribe/buy the financial instrument. This

3 means that sending brochures and presentations to potential investors in France is likely to be considered as marketing in France especially if an end investment comes about as a result of such activities. The material difficulty with the different views is that it creates inefficiencies. Indeed, "cap-intro" services (as an example) and investor advisors struggle to understand in which countries they can carry out their activities without potentially bringing un-connected fund managers and funds into the scope of the AIFMD. Non-European Private Placement rules Under AIFMD, a non-european manager may market a fund into the EEA if it complies with the local private placement rules (which have been amended as a result of the AIFMD) for each EEA jurisdiction where it wishes to market. This is commonly referred to as the "Article 42" notification process. In some respects this process is working; it is broadly possible to market a fund into Europe using the Article 42 notification procedure. However, the following bug-bears exist: relevant member state (as detailed above) how can fund managers provide these documents to an investor in order to negotiate them and not breach "marketing" requirements in the member states and still be able to provide the relevant regulator with final form documents for the regulators' approval. For some questions it appears there are no answers Despite the Article 42 notification process broadly working in most member states, a couple of problem member states remain. Currently we understand that there is no Article 42 type notification procedure for non-european funds that wish to market into Italy. While there is such a procedure for France, it appears so arduous that we are not aware of any manager who has successfully completed the process. In such jurisdictions many managers are relying on reverse solicitation type concepts even though the relevant regulators have provided little comfort on the availability and use of such safe harbour. AIFMD "regulator reporting" A fund manager's problems are further compounded when, after navigating the quagmire of the marketing rules, they are then faced with AIFMD regulator reporting requirements. the "Approval" timeframe in each jurisdiction varies dramatically. For example, the FCA in the UK has generally been approving marketing notifications within a day or so (although recent applications appear to be taking quite a lot longer). This should be compared to the German (BaFin) process where approval to market a professional fund is taking more than three months (and a similar length of time to prepare the required application). There is also little consistency in the approach taken by some national regulators; we have seen one regulator approve a request within two weeks for one fund and then take six months for another fund where there has been no material difference in the applications. The above issues are also complicated by a "chicken and egg" problem that appears in many member states. Certain regulators require final form documents in order to approve an Article 42 notification. This can be particularly difficult in relation to closed-ended funds where investor documents (for example subscription agreements and limited partnership agreements) are heavily negotiated with potential investors. Further, if providing such documents constitutes "marketing" in the Without wishing to go into too much detail on the topic (because it may bring about sleep) the following list demonstrates some of the problems relating to regulator reporting that currently exists across various member states: We have a client who applied to market into a certain member state a few months ago. At a later date we asked the regulator how the relevant reporting forms should be sent to them. Initially, the regulator said that they had never received our notification (which was worrisome). On being pushed further on this point the regulator back-tracked and said that they had found it but were "only working through them now" (which was odd because we had been given permission to market). We then asked them how we should go about reporting to them (i.e. which forms they want and through which channels). The short answer was "we don't know". Reporting requires AIFM and AIF codes/numbers. Unfortunately there is a completely mixed response from European regulators as to what they expect in relation to these details. Some appear to want a number that they supply to you when you notify (although we have had

4 instances when the number was never supplied) whilst others seem to want a number provided by the (non-eea) home state regulator (with no answer to the question as to what happens if you do not have a home state regulator or have never been given such a number). As has been detailed above, there are also different views between leading regulators (such as the FCA) on how reporting cells are to be completed. Interestingly it was the FCA that led with the view that the monetary value of subscriptions, redemptions should be supplied and not the amount of investors (which previously ESMA had indicated it wanted). The moral of this story might be that when in doubt choose the approach that seems to make the most sense! Certain member states have also developed their own form of reporting template. While such forms are similar to those set out by ESMA they also require separate reporting to be given in respect of the manager's financial soundness (looking far more like a balance sheet type report relating to the manager than anything relating to the underlying fund). This clearly increases the on-going compliance burdens on the manager. Lastly, certain member states are not in a position to accept reports at the moment. However, there is not a list of regulators that this applies to. The only way to find out is to seek out someone at the appropriate regulator who is sufficiently knowledgeable to give the answer or simply choose which Chinese whispers you are most comfortable listening to. Finally, a word of warning, if you are about to submit any AIFMD management or marketing passport applications to regulators in relation to sub-funds or compartments, please ensure you have had a stiff drink first. We'd be happy to join you at the bar! Roll on MIFID II implementation DISCLAIMER This is a financial promotion and has been reviewed in accordance with being fair clear and not misleading, however Sturgeon Ventures LLP in accordance with COBs has taken a proportionate approach but does not verify the information. The information it is only for Guidance, and Education and none of the information contained within should be constituted as advice. This document is for Professional Clients and Eligible Counterparties and their Professional Advisors and is not for Retail Clients. If you seek advice, on any aspect regarding AIFMD, or any other related subjects in any of the content please contact the contributor for Professional Advice with regards to your own circumstances or your seek advice from your own Professional Advisors, or take a legal opinion in your own jurisdiction. AIFM Solutions is a trading name of Sturgeon Ventures LLP which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom. July 2015

Further information For further information

+44 (0)20 7859 1029 E: rob.moulton@ashurst.

(0)20 7859 1033 E: nicola.higgs@ashurst.

Development Lawyer T: +44 (0)20 7859 2579 E:

com Becky Critchley Solicitor T: +44 (0)20

com Anne Mainwaring Associate T: +44 (0)20

5 Further information For further information on any of the issues raised in this newsletter, please speak to your usual contact at Ashurst or: Rob Moulton Partner T: +44 (0) E: James Perry Partner T: +44 (0) E: Ben Hammond Partner T: +44 (0) E: Nicola Higgs Senior Associate T: +44 (0) E: Jake Green Senior Associate T:+44 (0) E: Lorraine Johnston Professional Development Lawyer T: +44 (0) E: Becky Critchley Solicitor T: +44 (0) E: Anne Mainwaring Associate T: +44 (0) E: Louise Dobbyn Solicitor T: +44 (0) E: Tim Cant Solicitor T: +44 (0) E:

6 Abu Dhabi Suite 101, Tower C2 Al Bateen Towers Bainunah (34th) Street Al Bateen PO Box Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates T: +971 (0) F: +971 (0) Adelaide Level 3 70 Hindmarsh Square Adelaide SA 5000 T: F: Beijing Level 26 West Tower, Twin Towers B12 Jianguomenwai Avenue Chaoyang District Beijing PRC T: F: Brisbane Level 38, Riverside Centre 123 Eagle Street Brisbane QLD 4000 T: F: Brussels Avenue Louise Brussels Belgium T: +32 (0) F: +32 (0) Canberra Level Moore Street Canberra ACT 2601 T: F: Dubai Level 5, Gate Precinct Building 3 Dubai International Financial Centre PO Box Dubai United Arab Emirates T: +971 (0) F: +971 (0) Frankfurt OpernTurm Bockenheimer Landstraße Frankfurt am Main Germany T: +49 (0) F: +49 (0) Hong Kong 11/F, Jardine House 1 Connaught Place Central Hong Kong T: F: Jakarta (Associated Office) Oentoeng Suria & Partners Level 37, Equity Tower Sudirman Central Business District Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav Jakarta Selatan Indonesia T: F: Jeddah (Associated Office) Faisal Adnan Baassiri Law Firm in Association with Ashurst LLP Alesayi Building Madinah Road (South) Al Andalus District/1 PO Box Jeddah Saudi Arabia T: +966 (0) F: +966 (0) London Broadwalk House 5 Appold Street London EC2A 2HA UK T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) Madrid Alcalá, Madrid Spain T: F: /02 Melbourne Level William Street Melbourne VIC 3000 T: F: Milan Piazza San Fedele Milan Italy T: F: Munich Ludwigpalais Ludwigstraße Munich Germany T: +49 (0) F: +49 (0) New York Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY USA T: F: Paris 18, square Edouard VII Paris France T: +33 (0) F: +33 (0) Perth Level 32, Exchange Plaza 2 The Esplanade Perth WA 6000 T: F: Port Moresby Level 4, Mogoru Moto Building Champion Parade PO Box 850 Port Moresby Papua New Guinea T: F: Rome Via Sistina, Rome Italy T: F: Shanghai Suite CITIC Square 1168 Nanjing Road West Shanghai PRC T: F: Singapore 12 Marina Boulevard #24-01 Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3 Singapore T: F: Stockholm Jakobsgatan 6 Box 7124 SE Stockholm Sweden T: +46 (0) F: +46 (0) Sydney Level 36, Grosvenor Place 225 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 T: F: Tokyo Shiroyama Trust Tower 30th Floor Toranomon Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan T: F: Washington DC 1875 K Street NW Washington, DC USA T: F: This publication is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to. Readers should take legal advice before applying the information contained in this publication to specific issues or transactions. For more information please contact us at Broadwalk House, 5 Appold Street, London EC2A 2HA T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) Ashurst LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC and is part of the Ashurst Group. It is a law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales under number The term "partner" is used to refer to a member of Ashurst LLP or to an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications or to an individual with equivalent status in one of Ashurst LLP's affiliates. Further details about Ashurst can be found at Ashurst LLP 2015 Ref: January 2015

All over now? Federal Parliament approves RETT blocker avoidance rules

Ashurst Frankfurt June 2013 All over now? Federal Parliament approves RETT blocker avoidance rules Introduction The Federal Parliament (Bundestag) has approved the introduction of a new Section 1 para.