EMIR Update - ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards

Transcription

1 October 2012 EMIR Update - ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards Introduction The European Securities and Markets Authority ( ESMA ) published on 27 September its technical standards and final report on EMIR, 4 days before the deadline in EMIR of 30 September This follows its consultation on its technical standards under EMIR, launched on 25 June 2012, and its discussion paper issued in February this year. The technical standards have now been submitted to the European Commission for them to consider with a view to adopting by the end of the year, in time for the obligations under EMIR to become effective in Much of the detail in EMIR for the market to comply with their obligations was left to ESMA to develop in technical standards, and so their publication is a big step forward in the EMIR implementation process. However, whilst the detail provided in the technical standards should help place market participants in a position where they are better able to prepare themselves to comply with their obligations under EMIR during the course of next year, none of the key questions such as which products must be cleared and when, will be answered until at least the middle of next year. Although the market was only given 6 weeks to respond to the consultation on the technical standards, the market rose strongly to the challenge, and these efforts have not been in vain: a number of helpful changes to the draft technical standards have been made. In particular, ESMA has to some extent backtracked on its proposals in the consultation paper to impose a mandatory obligation for clearing members to facilitate indirect client clearing arrangements, this is no longer mandatory, and will come as a relief to the industry. Contents Key aspects of the consultation paper:... 1 Still to come and timetable 3 Technical Standards on clearing obligation, risk mitigation and exemptions 5 Indirect clearing arrangements... 5 Clearing obligation procedure... 5 Non-financial counterparties... 6 Clearing thresholds... 7 Intragroup transactions exemption... 7 Risk mitigation Timely confirmation... 8 CCP requirements... 8 Reporting UK implementation Key aspects of the consultation paper: > Indirect clearing: ESMA has removed the mandatory obligation for clearing members to facilitate indirect clearing arrangements that appeared in the draft technical standards, as well as relaxing in a number of respects provisions in its technical standards that apply to those clearing members that do choose to facilitate indirect clearing arrangements significantly the obligation to port assets and obligations of an indirect client has been watered down to putting in EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

2 place a credible arrangement for transferring such assets and positions. The clearing member obligation to manage directly the positions of indirect clients for at least 30 days following the failure of a client, has also been removed. > Register: the technical standards provide that ESMA will publish information on its register when it has received notification of a product for clearing. > Hedging contracts: ESMA relaxed the view it took in the consultation paper as to the types of hedging contracts that it considers nonfinancial counterparties may exclude when calculating their positions for the purposes of the clearing threshold, and has amended the technical standards to provide that portfolio hedging is permitted and OTC derivative contracts that offset hedging contracts can also be excluded. > Intra-group exemption: although the really key information regarding criteria to assess the applicability of the exemption is yet to be published, the technical standards do clarify information that must be included in an application to a regulator for approval to use the exemption for example, a legal opinion is no longer mandatory unless the regulator specifically asks for one. > Clearing thresholds: ESMA confirms that gross notional and not net mark-to-market values should be used when calculating the clearing thresholds. This is on the basis that the gross notional amount is a figure that is simpler to calculate and monitor. > Extra-territorial provisions: these are yet to be published in technical standards. > Authorisation of CCPs: ESMA notes that EMIR provides for a 6 month notification period following the adoption of technical standards for CCPs to comply and re-apply under EMIR. > CCP staffing: ESMA s view is that CCPs should have their own dedicated staff (e.g. such as Chief Compliance Officer, Chief IT officer etc) rather than relying on staff employed by parents. However, sharing of resources is not banned provided it is carried out in accordance with EMIR s outsourcing provisions. > Third country CCPs: ESMA confirms that the purpose of information to be provided by third country CCPs to ESMA when applying for recognition is so that ESMA can confirm how the third country rules are implemented in practice and not to duplicate the equivalency assessment on the third country legislation that will be performed by the European Commission under EMIR. > Margin: the paper provides that CCPs in respect of initial margins shall have confidence levels of: 99.5% for OTC derivatives and 99% for other financial instruments, although in respect of OTC derivative contracts there is some flexibility to allow CCPs to prove to the EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

3 regulators that a lower confidence interval is permitted depending on the risk profile of the contract. > Default waterfall: CCPs must hold dedicated own resources equivalent to 25% of the CCP s total capital resources. > Exposure and collateral reporting: despite push back from the industry ESMA imposes exposure and collateral reporting obligations. > Start date of reporting obligations: ESMA has opted for a phase in of reporting obligations per asset class. Interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives should be reported first, with other asset classes to follow 6 months later. Counterparties have 90 days after a trade repository has been registered before reporting must begin. Still to come and timetable Although these technical standards represent the bulk of the detail that is required under EMIR for participants to comply with their obligations (other than, of course, the really key information such as which products are to be cleared), there are still other gaps that are yet to be filled in further technical standards, including: > regulatory technical standards that provide further detail on contracts considered to have a direct substantial and foreseeable effect in the EU or cases where it is necessary or appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of EMIR this will provide much needed clarity on the extra-territorial effect of EMIR; > joint regulatory technical standards (ESMA and EBA) on risk mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives that are not cleared by a CCP, to be developed jointly by ESMA together with European Banking Authority ( EBA ) and European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ( EIOPA ). This is to include exchange of collateral (margins for bilateral transactions) to cover the exposures arising from those transactions and certain details on intra-group exemptions. > guidelines or recommendations on interoperability between CCPs by 31 December An approximate timetable for the key obligations under EMIR is set out below, (subject to assumptions set out below). Reporting: > For credit default swaps and interest rate swaps, based on the assumption that 1 April 2013 is the earliest date for a trade repository to be registered and approved to receive data on credit default swaps and interest rate swaps ( Report Date ). - entered into on or after 16/08/12 and outstanding on the Report Date, July 2013; EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

4 - outstanding on 16/08/12 and outstanding on the Report Date, October 2013; - outstanding on, or entered into on or after 16/08/12, but not outstanding at the Report Date, July > For other asset classes, based on the assumption that 1 October 2013 is the earliest date for a trade repository to be registered and approved to receive data on asset classes other than credit and interest rate (the Second Report Date ): - entered into on or after 16/08/12 and outstanding on Second Report Date, January 2014; - outstanding on 16/08/12 and outstanding on the Report Date, April 2014; - outstanding on or entered into on or after 16/08/12, but not outstanding at the Report Date, January > Collateral reporting for a transaction is extended by a further 6 months. Clearing: > Clearing obligations could apply from the middle of 2013 at the earliest this is based on the assumption that 1 June 2013 is the earliest possible date that a CCP could be authorised under EMIR; that home regulators notify ESMA that they have authorised a CCP to clear OTC derivative contracts at the beginning of 2013 when the technical standards are in force, and that the Commission endorses technical standards for the contracts to be cleared shortly after (and ESMA does not take the full 6 months permitted under EMIR to develop the technical standards). Note that the more realistic timetable for the clearing obligation to apply is probably the 3rd quarter of Note however, that since the publication of the technical standards on risk mitigation techniques on exchange of collateral and extra-territorial provisions has been delayed, it will be some time before the industry will be in a position to be able to identify extra-territorial contracts that should be cleared, as well as exchange segregated collateral on non-cleared contracts (the FSA one minute guide on EMIR states that the risk mitigation technical standards will be published in the first half of 2013). Although some comfort can be taken from a recital to EMIR 1 that confirms that any obligation in EMIR that is to be accompanied by technical standards should only apply from the date on which the technical standards take effect, we understand that the Commission takes the view that since recitals only offer guidance as to interpretation, they do not override a clear obligation within the body of the regulation itself. Firms should therefore consider the extent to which they are able to comply with these particular obligations under EMIR, if at all, in the absence of these technical standards. For example, whereas firms should be in a position to comply with the provisions relating to 1 Recital 93 of EMIR EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

5 portfolio compression from the beginning of 2013, since the technical standards relating to these obligations have been published, the extent to which firms will be able to comply with risk mitigation requirements relating to the exchange of segregated collateral is questionable. Technical Standards on clearing obligation, risk mitigation and exemptions Indirect clearing arrangements EMIR provides for indirect clearing arrangements as a method of complying with the clearing obligation, and ESMA was tasked with drafting technical standards to specify the type of indirect clearing arrangement that meet the conditions specified in EMIR. The conditions, broadly, are that the arrangements do not increase counterparty risk and that the assets and positions of a counterparty entering into such an arrangement benefit from equivalent protections to the segregation and portability protections for direct clients. The reference to indirect clearing arrangements was added at a relatively late stage in the legislative process. In response to feedback that indirect client clearing is still developing, ESMA opted for an approach in the consultation paper where it aimed to set out minimum standards without being overly prescriptive. Broadly, ESMA proposed requiring many of the provisions in EMIR regarding client clearing, including segregation and portability requirements, to move down a level to cover indirect clearing arrangements. However, ESMA received a large volume of responses from a wide range of the market, the overwhelming majority of which expressed concerns that some of the proposed requirements would be unworkable in practice and potentially counterproductive. Therefore, ESMA has removed the mandatory obligation for clearing members to facilitate indirect client clearing arrangements, as well as making a number of other substantial modifications to its technical standards for those clearing members that do choose to facilitate indirect clearing arrangements. For example, ESMA has removed the obligation for the assets and positions of an indirect client to be ported following the failure of a client, and instead has provided in the technical standards that client clearing members must put in place a credible arrangement for transferring indirect clients assets and positions of indirect clients to an alternative provider of indirect clearing services. In response to strong criticism, ESMA has also removed from the technical standards a requirement to manage directly the positions of indirect clients for at least 30 days following the failure of a client. Clearing obligation procedure ESMA provided detailed provisions on the clearing obligation procedure in its consultation paper, particularly regarding the information that must be reported to ESMA under the bottom up process (where a home regulator notifies ESMA when it has authorised a CCP to clear a class of derivatives). EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

6 ESMA has now agreed to publish information related to the notification of a product for clearing to ESMA. This is in response to requests from the market to be notified at the earliest opportunity that a new product may become eligible for clearing, so steps can be taken in readiness for this. Non-financial counterparties ESMA s technical standards in respect of non-financial counterparties must establish which derivative contracts are objectively measureable as reducing risk directly related to commercial activity or treasury financing activity, and therefore do not have to be included when a non-financial counterparty is calculating whether its OTC derivative positions exceed the clearing thresholds, referred to as the hedging definition. In response to feedback, ESMA has relaxed its view as to what it considers falls within the scope of this exemption and has amended the technical standards to provide that: > portfolio hedging is permitted and that OTC derivative contracts offsetting hedging contracts would also qualify as hedging - this is in recognition that some counterparties carry out hedging on a macro basis, and also to ensure that all transactions when taken together that relate to hedging activities are captured within the exemption; > OTC derivative contracts that relate to employee benefits such as stock options fall within the exemption - ESMA has reversed its policy in this respect, as in the consultation paper it took the view that they did not fall within the exemption. This is in response to feedback that often the non-financial counterparty incurs a liability related to the expected cash flow or the delivery of shares that could be covered by an OTC derivative contract and should be viewed as part of the counterparty s normal activity; > the scope of the hedging definition has been amended to capture activities that are in the normal course of business instead of just day to day activities - the wording ordinary course of business has been replaced with normal course of business ; > OTC derivative contracts that cover risks related to the acquisition of a company by a non-financial counterparty fall within the exemption, on the basis that it would be considered part of the normal course of business of that non-financial counterparty; > credit risk is covered in the scope of the exemption, as ESMA takes the view that managing credit risk is reducing a risk directly related to commercial or treasury financing activity of a counterparty. ESMA has also provided some guidance that whilst it finally considers it inappropriate to reference local accounting rules in the technical standards for the purpose of the hedging definition, most of the contracts classified as hedging under local accounting rules would in any event fall within the exemption. EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

7 Clearing thresholds ESMA proposed in the consultation paper to set the clearing thresholds per asset class, and 5 in total were put forward: credit derivatives, equity derivatives, interest rates, FX and commodity. The thresholds operate so that when one threshold is breached for an asset class the non-financial counterparty is subject to the EMIR clearing obligation in respect of all classes of derivatives into which it enters. The consultation drafts of the technical standard have been amended so that the thresholds apply to OTC contracts (whereas in the consultation drafts they applied to all derivatives). Although ESMA has relied on the Bank of International Settlements published data and that provided by regulators and some non-financial counterparties to set the value of the clearing thresholds, there is insufficient data for ESMA to have a complete view of the OTC derivatives market. In light of this, ESMA is proposing a phase-in approach whereby it will set clearing thresholds at a level that can be adjusted once more data is available. It is intended that the thresholds will also be reviewed on a regular basis. The technical standards confirm that thresholds will be set by reference to the gross notional amount of the OTC derivative contracts, as opposed to market value, which had been suggested by market participants and the European Systemic Risk Board. Clearing thresholds are therefore set at a high level. This is to accommodate non-financial counterparties that may not have sophisticated IT systems to calculate net exposure. Intragroup transactions exemption Intragroup transactions exemptions are available in two contexts in EMIR: as an exemption from clearing requirements and as an exemption from the riskmitigation techniques requirements that apply to non-financial counterparties in respect of non-cleared transactions. Two sets of technical standards are required in respect of the intragroup transactions exemptions: > to assess the applicability of the exemption; and > to stipulate the information that must be provided to the competent authority when a counterparty wishes to rely on an exemption. (Counterparties that wish to use the intragroup exemption in respect of the clearing obligation must apply to their regulator for approval, as must non-financial counterparties that wish to use the exemption in respect of the risk mitigation requirements where relevant group members are located in other EU states or third countries). The really key technical standards that will set out the criteria to assess the applicability of the exemption (and in particular the legal and practical impediments to the prompt transfer of own funds or repayment of liabilities between parties) are to be developed jointly by the EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA, to be published in a joint consultation at a later date. In the final report in respect of the notification requirements ESMA has relaxed some of the information requirements to make the process less burdensome. For example: EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

8 > counterparties need not now provide details of intragroup credit limits, on the basis that those groups that have them are likely to change them regularly; > counterparties do not have to provide a legal opinion to the regulator unless the regulator specifically asks for one this was in response to criticisms that this would be an expensive requirement to fulfil; > a counterparty, whilst retaining responsibility for notifying the regulator, can delegate the performance of notification to another entity, such as its head office. However, one notification across a group is not possible where the group is multi-jurisdictional. Note that counterparties must notify of their intention to use the exemption 30 days in advance of using it, and regulators have 30 days from receiving notice to make the decision whether or not to permit the use of the exemption. Risk mitigation Timely confirmation The technical standards propose that all non-cleared OTC derivatives should be confirmed: > by the business day following execution for financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties that exceed the clearing threshold; and > by the second business day following execution for non-financial counterparties below the clearing threshold. The technical standards also introduce a phasing-in element, distinguishing between categories of products (credit default swaps and interest rate swaps on the one hand, and equity, FX, commodities and others on the other hand) with interim objectives for periods ranging from the entry into force of the technical standards to August 2013, February 2014 and August CCP requirements ESMA was tasked with drafting a number of technical standards relating to recognition and organisation of CCPs under EMIR. To some extent ESMA has adopted a number of proposals from its consultation paper (particularly relating to governance, risk management, organisational structure and separation of reporting lines, business continuity etc). Although this reflects the fact that many of the proposals found favour with stakeholders as appropriate given the systemic significance of CCPs, there are some new or amended proposals in the final report, summarised below: > Authorisation of CCPs: ESMA notes that EMIR already provides for a 6 month period following the adoption of technical standards to comply and re-apply under EMIR. In addition, ESMA confirms that CCPs can apply for authorisation under EMIR on the basis of intended compliance. EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

9 > Colleges: ESMA has made some tweaks to the technical standards regarding the functioning of colleges, principally to aid their efficient establishment and operation for example, the technical standards now provide that the college can proceed to operate prior to every authority signing up to the written agreement determining the organisation of the college. This was to address concerns that efficient functioning of a college could be hampered up by proposed members being dilatory in signing the agreement. > Third country CCPs: The consultation paper provided that third country CCPs must provide certain information to ESMA to gain recognition, including details of their rules and internal procedures, financial resources, instruments cleared and lists of eligible collateral. ESMA has added to this list information relating to the segregation and portability services of third country CCPs, on the basis that this information will help ESMA assess whether the investor protection objective is met. ESMA reiterates in its final report that this information is required not to facilitate ESMA assessing the equivalence of the EMIR rules with those of the third country (since this is the European Commission s task under EMIR), but to confirm how the third country rules are implemented in practice. > Governance: In response to concerns raised by market participants regarding the human resources that a CCP should have, ESMA has clarified in the technical standards that a CCP should maintain as a minimum a chief risk officer, chief technology officer and chief compliance officer, and these functions may not be performed at a group level. Furthermore, ESMA confirms in the final report that whilst sharing of resources by group entities is not banned, it should be undertaken in accordance with EMIR s outsourcing requirements. The technical standards also clarify the reporting lines of the different functions, e.g. the risk management, compliance and audit functions must report directly to the board, and the chief risk officer should report to the board directly or via the chief risk officer. Finally, whilst ESMA is not banning directors from sitting on different boards, it states that CCPs should actively monitor potential conflicts of interest. > Disclosure: EMIR and the consultation paper provided that a CCP must make certain information open to the public, including key financial information, list of clearing members, remuneration policy etc. ESMA has added to this list details of eligible collateral and haircuts. Concerns were raised about the commercial sensitivity of some of this information, and ESMA has provided that disclosure of sensitive information can be waived by the regulator, or the CCP could give more limited disclosure, e.g. just to clearing members and clients known to the CCP. > Position records: ESMA has reversed its position in the consultation paper that required position records of margins, default fund EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

10 contributions and other financial resources for every recorded position. These proposals met with much resistance from the industry on the grounds of disproportionate cost/benefit analysis, and ESMA has now amended the technical standards to reflect that margins and default fund contributions should be recorded for each clearing member and client, where known to the CCP. > Margins: In respect of initial margins ESMA provided in the consultation paper that CCPs shall have confidence levels of: 99.5% for OTC derivatives and 99% for other financial instruments. The proposal of 99.5% met with resistance from the market, who argued that some OTC derivatives are more liquid than some on-exchange derivatives that are thinly traded. ESMA has therefore provided for some flexibility in the technical standards to allow CCPs to prove to the regulators that a lower confidence interval is permitted if the OTC contract has the same risk profile as listed products. > Default waterfall: EMIR requires CCPs to hold dedicated own resources to be used in the default waterfalls and must specify how to calculate these resources. ESMA is persuaded to base the calculation on a percentage of the CCP s total capital resources. Only capital (including retained earnings and reserves) may be used to satisfy this requirement. In the final report and in response to push back from the industry, ESMA has revised down the percentage of the CCPs capital resources from 50% to 25% of the capital. The actual minimum capital requirements are specified by the European Banking Authority in technical standards published on 26 September. > Collateral: ESMA must specify the type of collateral that is considered highly liquid and therefore acceptable collateral for a CCP under EMIR. ESMA provides some clarity in the technical standards in respect of what amounts to highly liquid collateral. These include collateral in the form of financial instruments admitted as investments for the CCP and must be either transferable securities or money market instruments. This would allow shares to be eligible even if not the underlying of the derivatives contracts covered by such collateral. In addition ESMA confirms that commercial bank guarantees are acceptable collateral, and now confirm that they need not be backed with financial instruments of the same quality as those eligible as collateral and other types of backing is sufficient subject to conditions. ESMA is also providing for a delayed application date of this provision (3 years). Reporting EMIR introduces an obligation on all counterparties to all types of derivatives contracts (OTC or on exchange, cleared or non-cleared) to report their trades to trade repositories authorised under EMIR. > Purpose of reporting: ESMA acknowledges in its final report, as it did in its consultation paper, that consistency of information that must be reported under EMIR with reporting obligations under MiFID is a key EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

11 issue, since EMIR provides that reporting to a trade repository that is authorised as an ARM under MiFID will ensure compliance with both MiFID and EMIR reporting obligations. The industry has consistently fed back to ESMA the need to avoid duplication of efforts in this respect. ESMA however maintains in the final report that it is not possible to align the data that is required under EMIR with MiFID completely, since EMIR s reporting obligations are more extensive. ESMA does confirm, however, that it will continue working towards the objective of a common reporting mechanism and will discuss any differences with the trade repositories and the national regulators. > Beneficiaries: EMIR requires that the beneficiary of rights and obligations arising from a transaction should be identified in a report, where this differs from the counterparties to a trade. ESMA also clarifies that where a transaction is executed by a structure (e.g. fund, trust, etc) that has a number of beneficiaries, it is sufficient to identify the structure and not all the individual beneficiaries. > Codes: a global Legal Entity Identifier that is endorsed in the EU should be used where available. Where not available, Bank Identification codes and Business Entity Identifiers should be used. In relation to product codes, the technical standards provide that in the absence of a globally agreed product identifier, ASIN, AII and CFI may be used. > Trade identification: where trades are reported separately by each counterparty, a Unique Trade Identifier ( UTI ) should be reported with each counterparty to allow for the matching of each side. Where a UTI is available, it should be used. Where one is not available, counterparties themselves are given responsibility for the generation of a UTI, to facilitate aggregation of data across trade repositories. > Specific asset classes: ESMA has included specific fields on commodity derivatives including energy derivatives. > Exposure reporting: despite vigorous pushback from the industry on the reporting of exposures, ESMA remains convinced that this information will greatly improve the monitoring of systemic risk, and considers that counterparties will need to, in any event, calculate this when carrying out their mark-to-market valuations on a daily basis. > Collateral reporting: the technical standards despite opposition from the industry provide that counterparties must report information on collateral, including collateral type and amount. ESMA has however made a slight concession and states that counterparties that exchange collateral on a portfolio basis may do so, provided that a unique code is assigned to the portfolio. > Start date of reporting obligation: in response to concerns from the industry regarding setting up reporting systems to comply with EMIR, ESMA has opted for a phase-in of reporting obligations per asset class. Interest rate and credit derivatives should be reported first, with other EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

12 asset classes to follow 6 months later. A further 6 months is also being given to the industry in respect of collateral reporting, to give sufficient time to develop necessary systems. Counterparties have 90 days (as opposed to 60 proposed in the consultation paper) after a trade repository has been registered before reporting must begin. Contracts which were entered into on or after 16 August 2012 but are not outstanding on the reporting start date will need to be reported within 3 years. This slight relaxation has been made in recognition that this information is of less interest to regulators. UK implementation Although EMIR takes the form of an EU regulation that has direct effect in the UK, and therefore does not require much in the way of implementation via our domestic legislation, Treasury are proposing a limited number of changes to domestic legislation to implement EMIR. In particular, an increase to the scope of the FSA s investigative and enforcement powers to, e.g. permit the FSA to gather information from persons subject to the EMIR obligations is proposed through an EMIR Statutory Instrument. The FSA is currently consulting on amendments to the FSA Handbook to make a number of amendments necessary in light of the EMIR Statutory Instrument. These include a number of minor changes to the FSA s Recognised Investment Exchange and Recognised Clearing Houses Sourcebook to reflect the authorisation regime in EMIR for CCPs, and other CCP requirements in EMIR. EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September

13 Contacts For further information please contact: Michael Kent Partner (+44) Peter Bevan Partner (+44) Carl Fernandes Partner (+44) Nadia Swann Partner (+44) Sarah Parkhouse Partner Author: Kirsty Gibson This publication is intended merely to highlight issues and not to be comprehensive, nor to provide legal advice. Should you have any questions on issues reported here or on other areas of law, please contact one of your regular contacts, or contact the editors. Linklaters LLP. All Rights reserved 2012 Linklaters LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC It is a law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The term partner in relation to Linklaters LLP is used to refer to a member of Linklaters LLP or an employee or consultant of Linklaters LLP or any of its affiliated firms or entities with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the names of the members of Linklaters LLP together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners and their professional qualifications is open to inspection at its registered office, One Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ or on and such persons are either solicitors, registered foreign lawyers or European lawyers. Please refer to for important information on our regulatory position. We currently hold your contact details, which we use to send you newsletters such as this and for other marketing and business communications. We use your contact details for our own internal purposes only. This information is available to our offices worldwide and to those of our associated firms. If any of your details are incorrect or have recently changed, or if you no longer wish to receive this newsletter or other marketing communications, please let us know by ing us at marketing.database@linklaters.com. (+44) sarah.parkhouse@linklaters.com Harry Eddis Partner (+44) harry.eddis@linklaters.com One Silk Street London EC2Y 8HQ Telephone (+44) Facsimile (+44) Linklaters.com EMIR Update ESMA Publishes Finalised Technical Standards 27 September A /0.12/17 Oct 2012