'cookieOptions = {...};

Fondos de inversión. Anotaciones

• Inversión indirecta y fondos de inversión
• Se ha distinguido entre inversión directa, es decir, la adquisición de acciones en los mercados regulados, y la inversión indirecta mediante la configuración de patrimonios conjuntos a partir de aportantes diversos . Y, dentro de esta última se diferencian los modelos corporativos, como la Sociedad de Inversión de Capital Variable o SICAV (una Sociedad de capital variable para posibilitar una continua inversión y liquidación de la inversión ), y un modelo que podemos denominar personalista o  “fiduciario”, el de los fondos de inversión, en el que las aportaciones de los inversores forman un patrimonio variable formado con activos distintos. Se disocia la titularidad del patrimonio y su gestión. Ese patrimonio se confía a una Entidad Depositaria (ED) sobre la que recaen deberes de vigilancia, administración y gestión sobre la gestora y que ejecuta las órdenes de administración y disposición de la entidad encargada de la gestión profesional, la Sociedad Gestora (SG).  La autonomía del Fondo de Inversión implica que el patrimonio de inversión sólo venga afectado a la satisfacción de las deudas que se deriven de obligaciones que contraigan en el ejercicio de sus funciones como tal. Así, la garantía patrimonial de los acreedores de las obligaciones del FI queda exclusivamente limitada al patrimonio personal del FI.
•  En España dice el art. 3.1 de la Ley 35/2003 que los FI son patrimonios separados sin personalidad jurídica, pertenecientes a una pluralidad de inversores. En virtud del art. 5.1 de la misma, la condición de partícipe se adquiere mediante la realización de la aportación al patrimonio común. La participación es cada parte alícuota en que se divide el patrimonio del fondo (Art 7.1 ). El FI es un conjunto de bienes de naturaleza jurídica heterogénea con una función instrumental a la inversión. No existe una organización personificada alrededor de un patrimonio objetivamente destinado a un fin. Por el contrario, estamos más bien ante un objeto , un bien patrimonial unitario integrado por diferentes bienes económicos de inversión (o derechos evaluables en dinero), que son los elementos de los que se servirán la SG y la ED para el desarrollo de la inversión colectiva. En cuanto a su administración, está excluida la representación orgánica

ISDA's AGM. FSB General Secretary on Derivatives Markets reform

At the ISDA's AGM , 10th May 2017, the General Secretary of FSB delivered a talk on the prospectives  and needs for a future global reform on derivative markets.(Download here)


Whilst at international level,  post crisis policy reforms are almost complete (Central Counter Parties resilience, recovery and resolution, it is now time to assess  the effects and effectiveness of the reforms.

Among the works that lie ahead  data collection by Trade Repositories is a fundamental issue. As is it known, the FBS is developing governance options for  Unique Product Identifier (UPI) , Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI) and other data elements.

Post crisis reforms have resulted in more CCPs offering the services of clearing of OTC derivatives, also on a cross-border basis. Also,there has been developments in risk-control post-trade services (such as portfolio reconciliation, compression and valuation services, as well as better documentation practices).

In relation with main market structures, the crisis and reform brought increased rates of participation in central clearing.  But also CCP clearing members are imposing very high revenue thresholds and/or imposing requirements related to testing of leveraged rations  among others. Such new conditions can be unsurmountable barriers to smaller firms. Other aspects that require attention from the public authorities are related to market fragmentation, for instance its impact on liquidity and trading costs and other consequences still to be fully identified

• ISDA
• About ISDA (Spanish)

* HAIRCUTS IN SECURITIES FINANCING. ESMA

EU Regulation on Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse  aims at reducing financial stability risks . Within its development ESMA has published a research paper about  Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities (on shadow banking)  We extract this paragraph related to descuentos (haircuts) in SFT 

"Securities financing transactions (SFTs), which include mainly repurchase agrements (repos) and securities lending, involve the temporary exchange of cash or securities against collateral. EU SFT markets are very large, with the value of collateral used in SFTs amounting to several trillions of euros. To cover for risks related to the characteristics of the collateral and counterparty creditworthiness, a discount known as a haircut is usually applied to the value of collateral. Haircuts are helpful risk management tools, but haircut levels are also part of the negotiation between counterparties trading bilaterally. Haircuts may thus change over time to reflect the evolution of market conditions, and can contribute to procyclicality and financial instability by reinforcing asset price movements. 

"Haircuts are often, but not systematically, used as a pricing mechanism following internal discussions between the credit (or risk) department and trading desks. In securities lending markets, some entities rely on haircut grids pre-determined internally, from which traders can deviate up to a certain percentage, but the tolerance band for such deviations depends on the characteristics of the collateral and the entity’s risk appetite.  Collateral and counterparty analysis are the two key components used to determine haircuts. Counterparty credit risk plays a role prior to the transaction, in deciding whether or not to trade, and during negotiation on the terms of the trade. Factors considered in the counterparty analysis include creditworthiness, exposures and concentration. Factors considered in the collateral analysis include historical volatility of the asset, residual maturity, market risk, wrongway risk, currency mismatch, and asset class (for tri-party repos). Other minor factors may also influence haircuts, including for example the type of collateral ownership (title transfer versus collateral pledge). Following the internal risk assessment, trading desks usually engage in negotiations with their counterparty, which often include haircuts. Haircuts are one of the price components, together with repo rates or securities lending fees, that traders may use to strike a deal."

• More , at ESMA's site

SUPERVISORY BENCHMARKING

The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a Decision on data for supervisory benchmarking. It comes after the publication of the amended technical standards on benchmarking of internal approaches and requires Competent Authorities to submit data for the 2016 benchmarking exercise, focusing on High Default Portfolios and with reference to end-2015 data.

• Data submitted to the EBA according to this Decision shall be covered by the EU law framework of professional secrecy and confidentiality as applicable to the EBA. Access to this data shall be provided in conformity with the EBA Regulation.
• This Decision is without prejudice to the EBA’s power (Article 35 of the EBA Regulation) to request the competent authorities to submit other data or data from institutions  

NEW EU DATA PROTECTION REGULATION

After a long pre legislative process the EU General Data protection Regulation was published on the 4th may

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance)

• The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right  but framed in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. 
• This Regulation is set to respect the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular:
•  the respect for private and family life, home and communications, 
• the protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, 
• the freedom to conduct a business, 
• the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, 
• cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
• See comment (Spanish, Noticias jurídicas)

* INFORMATION TO BE KEPT AND ORGANISATIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER MIFID II

On the 27th April the Council of the EU made public its ANNEXES to the COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATIONsupplementing Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purpose of that Directive

• Minimum list of records to be kept by investment firms depending upon the nature of their activities
• Identified costs that should form part of the costs to be disclosed to the clients
• All costs and associated charges related to the financial instrument that should form part of the amount to be disclosed
• Requirement for operators of trading venues to immediately inform their national competent authority
• Signals that may indicate abusive behaviour under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014
• Record keeping of client orders and decision to deal
• Record keeping of transactions and order processing  

* HST . Occassional Paper FCA_ UK

High-frequency traders (HFTs) have received a mixed reaction from academics and practitioners with some people underlining their role as liquidity providers and others highlighting the problems that they could bring to the market.

• Occasional Paper No. 16: Are high-frequency traders anticipating the order flow? Cross-venue evidence from the UK market

From summary:  Do HFTs exploit their small (milliseconds) latency advantages to anticipate orders arriving in very quick succession at different trading venues from other market participants?. The regulatory EU set-up makes it more difficult to predict where orders will be routed, compared to the US market?

EU. Parliament and ECB to study virtual currencies, whilst Luxembourg grants first distributed ledger technology

The European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee  voted last week  in favor of creating a task force to study and regulate virtual currencies such as bitcoin with the aim of preventing their use by money launderers and terrorist groups. 

Also, the European Central Bank has begun experimenting with "distributed ledger technology," the platform underpinning the bitcoin digital currency, an official said Monday, cautioning that the technology’s “far-reaching” ramifications require more investigation.

Further, Bitstamp announced that Luxembourg has granted it a payment institution license, making the company the first nationally licensed Bitcoin exchange in the world. With the European Union’s “passport” that allows financial services providers legally established in one member state to operate in others, Bitstamp, the third-largest Bitcoin exchange, will also be able to operate across all 28 European Union countries. The license starts operativity on July 1, from Luxembourg

Background article here;  and here

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive. Data disclosure (summaries / collective data)

The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its Guidelines defining how confidential information collected under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) should be disclosed in summary or collective form without identifying individual institutions or relevant entities.

• To access the guidelines, see here
• Final report, here

* Remuneration policies and recent USA and EU documents

In USA the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency on Tuesday became the latest U.S. financial regulators to put forward proposals that would limit incentive compensation for senior bank executives, traders and other employees. Part of a six-agency rule first unveiled last week in a bid to restrict excessive risk-taking that many say helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis, Tuesday's proposal by the FDIC and OCC likewise enacts Section 956 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act

Meanwhile, ESMA guidelines on  remuneration policies (UCITS / AIFMD) ...Article 14a(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC (“UCITS Directive”), as amended by Directive 2014/91/EU (“UCITS V Directive”) provides that ESMA shall issue guidelines addressed to competent authorities or financial market participants concerning the application of the remuneration principles set out under Article 14b of the UCITS Directive (“UCITS Remuneration Guidelines”)....See  ESMA Guidelines on sound remuneration policies under the UCITS Directiveand AIFMD. 31.03.2016

• Also:LETTER_TO_EUROPEAN_COMMISSION_EUROPEAN_COUNCIL_AND_EUROPEAN_PARLIAMENT_ON_THE_PROPORTIONALITY_PRINCIPLE_AND_REMUNERATION_RULES_IN_THE_FINANCIAL_SECTOR.pdf(154.73 KB)  

   

* Credit conditions. Financing securities and OTC transactions. Quarterly results

The SESFOD survey is conducted four times a year and covers changes in credit terms and conditions over the three-month reference periods ending in February, May, August and November. The March 2016 survey collected qualitative information on changes between December 2015 and February 2016. The results are based on responses from a panel of 28 large banks, comprising 14 euro area banks and 14 banks with head offices outside the euro area.

EUCentral Bank has published: .... 

18 April 2016

• Less favourable credit terms for counterparties across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types.
• Less favourable non-price credit terms being offered in securities financing transactions but at the same time more favourable financing rates for many types of collateral.

Overall credit terms offered to counterparties across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types became less favourable during the three-month reference period ending in February 2016. The tightening of credit terms was most pronounced for counterparties which are hedge funds and non-financial corporations. Credit terms are expected to tighten somewhat further over the next review period (i.e. between March and May 2016). More

MARKET ABUSE. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS . NOTIFICATIONS

El DOUE 5.04. 2016 publica el Reglamento de Ejecución (UE) 2016/523 de la Comisión, de 10 de marzo de 2016 establece las normas técnicas relativas al formato y la plantilla para la notificación y la publicación de las operaciones realizadas por directivos de conformidad con el Reglamento (UE) nº 596/2014 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo.

• Además de en el Reglamento desarrollado, trae base en los proyectos de normas técnicas de ejecución presentados por la Autoridad Europea de Valores y Mercados a la Comisión, así como en las previas consultas públicas de estas instituciones.
• El Reglamento del que se da noticia establece la plantilla que ha de cumplimentarse y remitirse electrónicamente para comunicar a las autoridades supervisoras de mercados, las operaciones que hayan realizado las personas con responsabilidades de dirección y/o las estrechamente vinculadas con ellas.
• Se presentan las operaciones individualmente y de forma agregada.
• La información agregada indicará el volumen de  operaciones de la misma naturaleza sobre los mismos instrumentos financieros realizadas en el mismo día de negociación y en el mismo centro de negociación, o fuera de un centro de negociación, indicando el precio medio ponderado por volumen. Sin embargo, no se permite agregar  ni compensar entre sí operaciones de distinta naturaleza.
• La información y plantillas se trasmitirá de modo electrónico seguro medios electrónicos por medios que garanticen la recepción completa, íntegra y confidencial

PATENTS AND HIGH SPEED TRADING

REPRODUCIMOS DESDE DerMerUle

Con los cambios de hábitos por parte de los consumidores de productos y servicios bancarios, cada vez más orientados a recurrir a las transacciones on line, la tecnología de apoyo a estas operaciones se ha convertido en instrumento fundamental, no sólo desde la perspectiva de desarrollo tecnológico o incluso para el derecho de patentes. Al contrario, hoy es un elemento central para la propia gobernanza de las entidades (también bancarias), de sus productos, y de la relación con sus clientes. Y, se apoya en tecnología “blockchain” utilizada, por ejemplo, la industria del “bitcoin”

Nos hacemos eco de la actualidad en este terreno (ver los enlaces más abajo) a raíz de que “patent trolls” consiguieron patentar a su nombre determinados procedimientos de seguridad en la oferta de servicios financieros online que se estaban utilizando (con rasgos similares) por intermediarios pero también por las propias entidades (que las protegían en su caracterización individual y concreta mediante la técnica del secreto comercial). Obtenida la titularidad de aquellas patentes, los reconocidos titulares ( los trolls) reclamaron contra los bancos por violación de aquellos títulos.

Hoy en día, son las propias entidades, incluyendo el Bank of America, Bank of England o consorcios de bancos (como el constituido en torno a R3- Fintech por más de 30 entidades entre las que se encuentran Barclays, BMO Financial Group, Credit Suisse, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, HSBC, Natixis, Royal Bank of Scotland, TD Bank, UBS, UniCredit,  Wells Fargo) las que están  solicitando este tipo de patente (Ver solicitudes de patentes sobre procesos y criptotecnología, US Patent Office).

La tecnología Blockchain opera (perdón por esta “mega-simplificación”) a modo de enorme libro contable que registra cada operación y almacena la información recibida de una red descentralizada.

Ver

• Wall Street Races to Secure FinTech Patents
• Bank of America is going big on block chain (CBN video)
• Why Block chain can change everithing (CBN video y referencias de diversos bancos e intermediarios)
• Bitcoin, The Blockchain And The Future Of ‘Decentralized’ Conglomerates
• Informe sobre Fintech y su influencia sobre el modelo de gestión de pagos en las entidades bancarias (Oliver Wyman)
•  Más:
  • Sobre solicitudes del Bank of America
  • Understanding and regulating… (Michigan Law Review, 2016)

Etiquetas: Gobierno Corporativo, Inversión, Patentes, Propiedad Intelectual, Servicios financieros 

HST , AND MIFID II

Si  el HST y la electronificación crecientes son realidades que vienen impactando en los mercados, los controles normativos y supervisores constituyen retos actuales de compleja solución. Alguna de sus consecuencias ya las destacábamos en anteriores entradillas aquí y aquí, en particular por sus manifestaciones en EEUU donde algunos sus efectos particularmente evidentes en los mercados de valores (por ejemplo el 6.05.2010) fueron analizados por el supervisor, y condenados por los tribunales.

• Una de las perspectivas del nuevo panorama la constituye el desequilibrio entre rapidez en la ejecución, y dificultad del análisis a posteriori, al menos hasta que se configuren mecanismos técnicamente seguros de fijación y trazabilidad de órdenes inteligentes automatizadas; así como respuestas jurídicamente solventes de supervisión, control y , en su caso, eficaz sanción.
• En el ámbito Europeo, estamos a espera de la plena vigencia del  sistema MiFID II, algunas de cuyas previsiones de reforma reducirán la afectación de manipulación de mercado mediante técnicas patológicas  de HST, por ejemplo estableciendo controles sobre las infraestructuras o controles previos de los algoritmos de negociación; introduciendo “cortafuegos” cuantitativos (precios, volúmenes)  y técnicos en las órdenes de HST, para evitar su propagación infinita que perjudique al mercado y también medidas para garantizar la liquidez mediante acuerdos entre los operadores. La Autoridad Europea de Mercados y Valores, ESMA, realizó su primer informe sobre HST en Europa y actualmente reúne  expertos técnicos para contribuir a la redacción de la normativa de 2 , 3 y 4 nivel necesaria para completar este importante aspecto del nuevo sistema MIFID II.
• A nivel de los Estados de la UE, los organismos gestores de mercados se están movilizando y  algunos supervisores nacionales (como la FCA o el Consejo de Supervisión del Banco de Inglaterra ) se están adelantando en la definición de efectos reconocibles en la UE (por ejemplo sobre los precios de HSBC en enero 2014) , además de configurando los detalles y normas técnicas y sancionadoras. Destacan las disposiciones "claw back" por periodos de hasta 10 años de la FCA. También la CNMV entre nosotros está inmersa en el análisis y búsqueda de soluciones; auspiciando o  patrocinando los primeros trabajos en este ámbito, augurando regulación inminente, pese a algunos comentarios de críticos.

Ver también,

• BME (2008)
• Cuatrecasas Gonzalvez Pereira sobre HST (2013)
• Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringuer (2013)

Private investor protection in Germany

The  Private Investor Protection Act (Kleinanlegerschutzgesetz) of 3rd July 2015 reinforces private investors protection when they  invest in products and  instruments outside regulated markets.

The new act

• widens the scope of information to be included in  sales prospectuses (Verkaufsprospekt) for instruments regulated by the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagegesetz), such as non-securities and non-fund investments,
• introduces a prospectus requirement for the marketing of subordinated loans (Nachrangdarlehen) and profit-participating loans (partiarisches Darlehen) to the public, with an exception made for internet crowd-funding up to a value of €2.5 million, 
•  introduces a minimum term of an investment product of 24 months, 
•  sets a maximum validity of the sales prospectus of 12 months, 
•  creates a much stricter regulation of the (public) advertising of the investments in assets and  an obligation of  issuers to draft annual financial statements (if not already required by other laws). 
•  expands BaFin´s power to intervene in market practice through the possibility of "shaming" (ie making public a breach due to marketing an offer without having published a sales prospectus in advance), as well as an extended authorisation for BaFin to examine an offeror´s financial accounting.

Recalling: EU Transfer of Company Seat (de facto)

European Court of Justice established some principles of law in the context of freedom of establishment and the transfer of a company’s de facto head office to other member states that have had a strong impact on national regulation of legal conflicts (incorporation theory v., seat theory).  As a result of the leading cases in this context companies can de facto transfer their head office to the member state of their choice.

• The state to which the company moves its head office is not allowed to limit this transfer. 
• Exceptionally there can be restrictions on the possibility of transferring the de facto head office, but they have to be in line with the strict requirements of freedom of establishment
• The state in which the company was founded still has the power to lay down certain conditions on the emigration of a company (Daily Mail doctrine).

As a result of these decisions there has been growing interest in setting up companies registered in one member state but with their head office in another member state, usually known as letterbox companies.

• Daily Mail (Case 81/87, 27 September 1988). Daily Mail was a tax-law case. Daily Mail plc wanted to move its  factual head office  (tax residence) to the Netherlands because for tax reasonns, though it planned also to remain a company subject to UK company law. The UK Treasury Department refused permission for the transfer of seat, which is necessary under UK law. Daily Mail referred the question to the ECJ, whether the Treaty preclude a member state from obstructing the transfer of the de facto head office from a member state.The ECJ concluded that this issue falls outside the scope of the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment. The  ECJ added obiter dictum some comments and this judgment was confirmed by the Cartesio decision. See Judgment of the ECJ 

• Centros (Case C-212/97, 9 March 1999). Two citizens from Danemark incorporated Centros Ltd under UK company law. The company traded only in Denmark. The founders stated that they had established Centros under UK company law solely to avoid the minimum capitalisation requirement for Danish limited liability companies. The Danish commercial registry considered this to be an unlawful circumvention of the Danish minimum capitalisation rules and so refused to register the company’s branch office in Denmark . This question was referred to the ECJ: compatibility (or not) with freedom of establishment of the refusal to register a branch of a lawfully founded company that has its registered office in another member state, but in which the company does not itself carry on any business. The ECJ ruled that under frredom of establishment Member States cannot discriminate against this company on the grounds that it was formed in accordance with the law of another member state in which it has its registered office but does not carry on any business. Further, States are not authorised to restrict freedom of establishment on the ground of protecting creditors or preventing fraud if there are other ways of countering such risks. In this leading case the ECJ took quite a liberal approach in the context of company rights. Moreover, the Court considers the conditions governing abuses of EC law restrictive.
• Überseering (Case C-208/00, 5 November 2002) All the directors of Überseering BV, a limited liability company organised under Dutch law, were resident in Germany. The German courts decided that, owing to the location of the company’s principal office, German corporate laws apply to the company and it could not litigate as a "purported" Ducht entity. The  Überseering BV case reached the ECJ. In the judgment, the ECJ ruled that it was incompatible with the freedom of establishment for a member state to deny legal capacity (and standing to sue or be sued in courts) to a company formed in a Member State which moves its central place of administration to another Member State. Against the expectations  the recommendation of the Advocate General, the ECJ also held that where a company incorporated in another Member State exercises its freedom of establishment in another Member State, that other Member State is required to recognise the company’s legal capacity (and capacity to be a party to legal proceedings) which it enjoys under the laws of its state of incorporation. This ECJ judgment means that a company incorporated in a EU Member State is entitled to rely on the principle of freedom of establishment to contest any refusal by a host state to recognise it as a legal entity with the capacity to enter into contracts and be a party to legal proceedings. As a matter of German law, this decision signals the end of the current practice whereby the legal capacity of foreign incorporated companies is not recognised, where the effective seat of administration is in Germany Überseering.pdf. 
• Inspire Art (Case C-167/01; 30 September 2003). A Dutch Businessman established the company Inspire Art Ltd under the laws of England and Wales and requested the registration of the company’s Dutch branch office at the commercial registry in the Netherlands. The registry decided that specific Dutch rules for foreign entities registered in the Netherlands applied. As a consequence, Inspire Art Ltd would have been required, inter alia, to use a company name indicating its foreign origin, and comply with the minimum capitalisation rules for Dutch limited liability companies. The ECJ decided in favour of freedom of establishment by holding that rules submitting pseudo-foreign companies to the company law of the host state were inadmissible. It laid down that a foreign company is not only to be respected as a legal entity having the right to be a party to legal proceedings, but rather has to be respected as such, that is, as a foreign company that is subject to the company law of its state of incorporation. Any adjustment to the company law of the host state is, hence, not compatible with European law. Insipre Art.pdf 
• Cadbury Schweppes (Case C-196/04, 12 September 2006). The Cadbury Schweppes group had established two subsidiaries in Ireland so that profits related to the internal financing activities of the Cadbury Schweppes group might benefit from the more favourable Irish tax regime. In the view of the national court, the subsidiaries were incorporated in Ireland in order not to fall within the application of certain UK tax provisions on exchange transactions and the national tax authorities demanded the corporation tax, Cadbury Schweppes appealed. In the end the relevant UK court referred the case to the ECJ to clarify the EC law implications. The question referred to the ECJ was whether freedom of establishment precludes national tax legislation, under certain conditions, from imposing a charge upon a parent company on the profits made in a foreign subsidiary. The ECJ indicates that it is necessary to examine the behaviour of a taxpayer who incorporates a company in another member state in light of the aim of freedom of establishment in order to assess whether the behaviour at stake is a mere exercise of freedom of establishment or a legal abuse. So, national measures restricting freedom of establishment may be justified where they specifically relate to wholly artificial arrangements aimed at circumventing application of the legislation of the member state concerned.The ECJ considered that freedom of establishment requires a stable and continuing basis in the economic life of a member state other than the state of origin.Therefore a company cannot invoke freedom of establishment in another member state for the sole purpose of benefiting from more advantageous legislation unless the establishment in the other member state is intended to carry on genuine economic activity. According to the ECJ a restriction of freedom of establishment is therefore possible in cases of a ‘letterbox’ or ‘front’ subsidiary.The ECJ seems to move away from Centros, where the company founders set up a company that had never engaged in any economic activity in its founding state and was aimed solely at avoiding Danish company law Cadbury Schweppes.pdf.   
   
• Cartesio (Case C-210/06, 16 December 2008). Cartesio is a Hungarian limited partnership whose application for registration of the transfer of its seat to Italy (only de facto) was rejected by the Hungarian Court of Registration as Cartesio intended continuing to operate under Hungarian company law. The refusal to register de de facto transfer was referred to the ECJ, to determine whether Articles 43 and 48 EC Treaty preclude a member state from imposing an outright ban on a company incorporated under its legislation transferring its de facto head office to another member state without having to be wound up in Hungary first, and to have the seat transfer entered in the Hungarian Company Register. Cartesio case is to a considerable extent similar to the ECJ’s Daily Mail Decision, since it also raises the question of the transfer abroad of the de facto head office. The Court did not overrule its ‘Daily Mail’ decision, which allows member states to restrict the transfer of the central administration of a company abroad. On the contrary, the ECJ reaffirmed its Daily Mail doctrine: ‘Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a company incorporated under the law of that Member State may not transfer its seat to another Member State whilst retaining its status as a company governed by the law of the Member State of incorporation.’ In an obiter dictum it was stated that freedom of establishment also covers the possibility of a company converting itself into a company governed by the law of another member state – which is de facto the transfer of the registered office (para 111–113). This announcement contrasts with a statement in the same judgment, some paragraphs previously, in which the Court says: ‘It should be pointed out, moreover, that the Court also reached that conclusion on the basis of the wording of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty ... the question whether – and, if so, how – the registered office (siège statutaire) or real seat (siège réel) of a company incorporated under national law may be transferred from one Member State to another as problems which are not resolved by the rules concerning the right of establishment, but which must be dealt with by future legislation or conventions’ (para 108). As a result, the consequences of this obiter dictum for board-level participation rules have not been finally clarified. However, there are good reasons for saying that the obiter dictum applies only if national law completely forbids any kind of transfer of seat to another member state. As long as one form of transfer is allowed under national law, Art. 43 and 48 EC do not apply. Cartesio.pdf 
  
  
  
   
  More 
  
  

 

SPANISH SUPERVISOR PUBLISHES REVIEW  ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REPORTS OF IBEX COMPANIES AND SPANISH QUOTED RETRIBUTIONS TO DIRECTORS

Publicado el informe de la CNMV sobre gobierno corporativo de sociedades cotizadas, correspondientes a 2014,es decir, a los informes que aún no están actualizados al CUBG de 2015.

• La web de la CNMV destaca que se están siguiendo un 85,4% de las recomendaciones; se ha alcanzado el 16,7% de diversidad de género en los consejeros del Ibex 35; que 12 sociedades cumplen el 100% de las recomendaciones.
• Muestra también un incremento en el capital flotante de las cotizadas para alcanzar el 42,9%
• En cuanto a los informes de retribuciones destaca la subida e n las retribuciones medias para alcanzar los318.000 €, un 11,6% más
  que en 2013. Las retribuciones fijas medias constituyen más del 50% para los consejeros de las cotizadas que no forman parte del Ibex 35, si bien no superan ese porcentaje en las del índice IB35.  La nota de la CNMV indica que el nivel de responsabilidad es el criterio más utilizado para fijar la contraprestación percibida por los administradores.

Liability of company directors. Individual action concurring with cause of dissolution (qualified losses) and bankruptcy declared. Dismissed. Judgment (Appeal) of the Court of Barcelona (s. 15th) of April 7, 2015 .

1. The claim against III,SL “a company with limited liability” and its manager, was brought  for damages allegedly caused by IIISL and is Director, as they did not promote the dissolution and liquidation of the company for undercapitalization (arts. 236, 241, 363. 1 e / and 367 of the Companies Act  (LSC).
2. The judgment of first instance was decided for the plaintiff
3. The Director’s appeal was founded on (i) the irrelevance of the First Instance Decision based on the provisions of art. 105 LSRL and 51a of the Bankruptcy Act (LC) and (ii) the non-existence of the conditions that can found an “individual action for damages”
4. The first plea is based on the incompatibility (in terms of Article 51bis LC) of the action for not promoting dissolution and liquidation, with the bankruptcy situation (IIISL voluntary bankruptcy was declared on November 27 2012 by the Commercial Court (7) at Barcelona. The First Instance Court had been required to suspend the ordinary process, but did not do it. The TS(as already stated by STS of June 20, 2013, acknowledged such incompatibility and rejected the first bases of the appeal  
5. Art 51bis LC establishes that upon declaration of the “concurso” leading to bankruptcy proceedings initiated before the bankruptcy declaration against the directors of corporations upon allegations that they had breached the duties imposed on them when there is a “cause for dissolution”, shall be suspended.
6. The “so called individual action” to demand liability from Directors is not affected by bankruptcy, but the action of responsibility for “failing to promote dissolution” is affected.
7. In terms of “individual action” for damages brought against the appellant, in its application, the plaintiff stated that the administrator urged supplying, whilst he knew of the under capitalization of the defendant company. The Director ought to have promoted timely dissolution and liquidation thus avoiding the disappearance of the debtor company and the non-payment of the debt to the plaintiff. The aim of Art. 241 of the LSC (individual liability action) is to restore the individual assets of the shareholders or third parties who have been directly damaged by an act or omission attributable to the Director. It is an action for damages to which the company's creditors are entitled and which requires a behavior or facts, acts or omissions - of managers lacking due diligence leading to injury. The injured plaintiff must prove a precise and direct causal link between such an act (omission, etc.) and the harmful result. Such direct causation was not evidenced. This leads to the dismissal of individual action for damages brought against the appellant