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
bodrum escort
Short Reads

ESMA publishes report on licencing of fintech firms across europe

ESMA publishes report on licencing of fintech firms across europe

ESMA publishes report on licencing of fintech firms across europe

18.07.2019 NL law

On 12 July, the European Securities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") published a report on the status of licencing regimes of FinTech firms across the European Union ("EU").  The report is based on two surveys conducted by ESMA since January 2018, which gathered evidence from EU national competent authorities ("NCAs") on the licensing regimes of FinTech firms in their respective jurisdictions.

The first survey, conducted in January 2018, sought to identify potential gaps and issues in the existing EU regulatory framework, assess how the existing national regimes diverge and, if necessary, propose recommendations to adapt EU legislation to emerging innovations. The second survey, in January 2019, attempted to identify the ways in which NCAs employed the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘flexibility’ when licensing FinTech firms.

The two surveys confirmed that NCAs do not typically distinguish between FinTech and traditional business models in their authorisation and licensing activities, since they concern authorisation of a financial activity, not a technology.  The key findings of ESMA's surveys, and its regulatory continuation as presented in ESMA's report, are summarised below and relate to the need for adaptation of legislation or greater clarity with respect to the following topics:

  1. the NCAs called for more clarity at EU level with respect to the definition of financial instruments and the legal nature of crypto-assets.  ESMA continues to foster supervisory convergence on the topic of crypto-assets across EU Member States.
  2. The surveys also identified the need for greater clarity around the governance and risk management processes associated with cyber security and cloud outsourcing. ESMA notes, however, that the joint ESA Advice (on risk management requirements and the costs and benefits of a cyber resilience testing framework) addresses many of these issues.
  3. ESMA notes that there is a direct link and various interdependencies between the facilitators of innovation on the one hand, and authorising approaches for innovative FinTech business models on the other. Innovation facilitators (for example, Dutch regulatory sandboxes) may have an impact on the licensing regime for FinTechs, which may lead to regulatory divergence. In this respect, ESMA notes that it has published a report (together with the EIOPA and the EBA) with respect to regulatory sandboxes. Moreover, the European Forum of Innovation Facilitators aims at fostering convergence concerning innovation facilitators.
  4. There has been ongoing discussion over need for a comprehensive EU-wide crowdfunding regime, in particular for crowdfunding based on non-MiFID II instruments. A proposed regulation for crowdfunding service providers is now under the review of the European Parliament and the Council.

Although ESMA does not put forward additional recommendations for changes in EU regulation, we as financial regulatory lawyers specialising in Fintech welcome the ESMA's report and its focus on Fintech and innovation in the financial sector.

In terms of its standpoint on innovation facilitators, however, we hope that ESMA's and the NCAs' criticism will not lead to the end of innovation facilitators and hubs in the various EU jurisdictions, including the Netherlands.  In 2016, Dutch regulators AFM and DNB launched the regulatory sandbox, aimed at providing bespoke regulatory solutions and easing market access in order to offer more room for innovation in the financial sector, and also jointly launched the ‘InnovationHub’, where new and existing market players can address their regulatory questions; another measure to further accommodate innovation. These initiatives play an important role in making the Netherlands an attractive location to establish innovative financial services providers, including payment services providers and electronic money institutions, and continue to play an important role in fostering innovation.

Team

Related news

12.03.2021 LU law
Stibbe Luxembourg lawyers co-author the SFDR Implementation Guide

Articles - Edouard d'Anterroches, Audrey Jarreton and Nicolas Pradel co-authored the SFDR Implementation Guide published on 9 March 2021 by the Association des Banques et Banquiers, Luxembourg (ABBL), the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI) and the Association des Companies d’Assurances et de Réassurances (ACA) for the use of their members.

Read more

09.03.2021 NL law
Stibbe partners with the Blue Tulip Awards

Inside Stibbe - For the third year in a row, Stibbe is a legal partner of the Blue Tulip Awards, allowing start-ups can make use of our high-quality legal knowledge during the innovation competition. Stibbe has chosen to commit itself to two themes: finance and prosperity, and cities and communities. These themes are important for Stibbe as a firm and are in line with the focus of the Stibbe StartsUP programme.

Read more

11.03.2021 NL law
Financial Regulatory – Update Q1 2021

Short Reads - Traditionally, 1 January (and 1 July) each year is a date on which new Dutch financial regulations enter into force. This year, the amendments to the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht – “Wft”) are relatively few, but other notable developments are worthy of attention.

Read more

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