umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
Short Reads

License wrongly rejected by the AFM

License wrongly rejected by the AFM

License wrongly rejected by the AFM

24.10.2016 NL law

In a recent decision, the Dutch appellate court in financial supervision matters ruled that the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets wrongfully rejected a license applied for by a Dutch investment firm. 

The firm offers binary options in the Netherlands. The Dutch regulator cannot reject a license because it considers the products the firm offers undesirable for a retail audience. The judgment confirms that also in case of firms offering high risk products, the powers of the regulators to refuse a licence are limited to the grounds laid down in the applicable laws and regulations. 

The judgment of the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, the "CBb") of 4 October 2016 can be found here (in Dutch only) 

Background

Optieclub.nl B.V., a party that offers binary options, applied for a license to provide investment services in the Netherlands on 4 December 2012. Binary options are options with either a fixed payout amount or a payout amount of zero. The payout will occur when the underlying value (e.g. index, commodity, shares) moved towards the direction that is agreed upon in the option. The AFM and the Dutch Minister of Finance consider binary options as high risk products and aim for a ban on advertising for such products. The AFM even qualifies binary options as "toxic".

On 1 May 2014, the AFM rejected the license application. The AFM found that Optieclub did not comply with the requirement to maintain a sound operational management (integere bedrijfsvoering). On 16 January 2015, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled in favour of Optieclub. The AFM appealed.

The CBb judgment

The AFM found that Optieclub did not sufficiently take (i) measures to prevent itself or its employees to breach the Betting and Gambling Act (Wet op de kansspelen, the "WoK"), and/or (ii) measures to prevent Optieclub or its employees from performing acts that are contrary to generally accepted standards (maatschappelijke betamelijkheid) that can damage public confidence in Optieclub or the financial markets, since binary options – as a product – do not satisfy the requirement of safeguarding the interests of the firm´s customers.

The CBb ruled that the AFM is responsible for supervising the operation of the financial markets. The AFM has powers within this mandate to set requirements and use enforcement measures. The AFM, however, does not have powers to set requirements or use enforcement powers outside this mandate. In particular, the CBb ruled that the AFM does not have the mandate to use its powers with respect to breaches of the WoK. According to the CBb, establishing whether the WoK is breached is the task of the Netherlands Gaming Authority (Kansspelautoriteit). In this case, the Netherlands Gaming Authority did not establish that Optieclub breached the WoK. The CBb therefore ruled that as long as the breach of the WoK is not established, the AFM cannot claim that the activities of Optieclub damages the confidence in Optieclub or the financial markets.

In addition, the CBb ruled that the assessment whether Optieclub acts in breach of generally accepted standards relates to the actual market conduct of Optieclub or its employees and cannot be determined by reference to the product alone. The mere fact that Optieclub offers binary options does not justify the conclusion that Optieclub acts contrary to generally accepted standards that can damage the trust in Optieclub or the financial markets. 

Related news

24.02.2021 NL law
How certain elements of the Dutch scheme may (or may not) affect ISDA Master Agreements

Articles - On 1 January 2021, the legislative framework for court-approved restructurings of debts outside formal insolvency proceedings (hereafter referred to as the ‘Dutch scheme’, or simply, the ‘scheme’) entered into force. Under the Dutch scheme a debt restructuring plan can be submitted to the creditors for voting, whereby a majority can bind a minority within each class of creditors and the competent court has the power to make the plan binding on dissenting classes of creditors.

Read more

22.02.2021 EU law
EU Regulator’s response to the Reddit rally

Short Reads - A massive stock market rally recently suddenly developed with respect to GameStop’s shares, a moribund chain of video game stores in the United States. The instigators: users of the investment forum r/wallstreetbets on Reddit. On 17 February 2021, the European Securities and Markets Authority delivered its strongest warning yet about the risks of using social media for investing, cautioning that any effort to coordinate trades online could violate EU market abuse regulations.

Read more

29.01.2021 NL law
Crediteuren op één lijn: een introductie in de structuur van de LMA intercreditor agreement

Articles - Bij grote (acquisitie)financieringen zijn veelal verschillende (soorten) crediteuren betrokken. Het is niet ongebruikelijk dat bij die financieringen gebruik wordt gemaakt van een gelaagde financieringsstructuur wat betreft de aan te trekken leningen (niet zijnde aandeelhoudersleningen). Dat wil zeggen dat de verstrekkers van die leningen ten aanzien van hun vorderingen een bepaalde rangorde overeenkomen.

Read more