UCITS V: Neue Anforderungen an die Unabhängigkeit zwischen Verwahrstelle und KVG sowie Regelungen zur Segregation von Vermögensgegenständen

Erneut ist die Fondsbranche in Europa mit einem Versuch konfrontiert, die Daumenschrauben bei Konzernzugehörigkeit von OGAW-Verwahrstelle und KVG anzuziehen. Verlockend einfach scheint die Argumentation, dass eine ausschließlich im Anlegerinteresse agierende Verwahrstelle nicht unternehmerisch mit der Verwaltungsgesellschaft verflochten sein darf. Ein Nachweis dafür, dass die Interessen der Anleger bspw. in DEKA – oder Union Fonds weniger unabhängig vertreten werden als die der Anleger eines DWS Fonds steht nach wie vor aus. Dennoch kann offensichtlich auch die Esma der Versuchung nicht widerstehen und nimmt mit einer Befragung Anlauf zur Definition neuer Anforderungen zur Vermeidung von Interessenkonflikten. Über die möglichen Auswirkungen ist man sich dabei durchaus bewusst:

„The approach on cross-shareholdings (first option – Anm: Begrenzung der Beteiligung in beide Richtungen auf max. 10%) is likely to lead to substantive additional costs to the extent that it would imply the separation of a large number of entities which are currently linked by a qualifying holding or are part of the same group.

These entities account for a significant share of the global market of depositaries of UCITS. The mapping exercise conducted by ESMA shows that rules on limitations on cross-shareholdings for the Relevant Entities indeed do not exist at the moment in Europe, except in the UK and Slovenia. This mapping exercise also shows that it is quite common in most Member States for management companies and depositaries to have either a common parent undertaking or a cross-shareholding. These are examples of the situation in some European jurisdictions, as revealed by the mapping exercise:

–          Germany: more than half of German management companies and depositaries have either a common parent undertaking or a cross-shareholding.

–          …

–          Luxembourg: 14% of the existing UCITS structures will be impacted.

–          …

Implementing this option would not entail many additional costs from a supervisory perspective, but might imply material additional costs for market participants because significant changes would have to be made to the structure of the companies, or different depositaries should be appointed. The mapping exercise conducted by ESMA also shows that NCAs find it very difficult to quantify these costs accurately. The input from stakeholders will be therefore a key element in this evaluation.”

Neben diesem Thema werden auch mögliche Kontrollmodelle für Verwahrstellen zur Überwachung der Segregation von Vermögensgegenständen bei Unterverwahrung, getrennt nach EU und Nicht-EU-Institute, beschrieben:

“In case of delegation of the functions referred to in Article 22(5) of Directive 2009/65/EC, in order to ensure that in the event of insolvency of the third party, assets of a UCITS held by this third party in custody are unavailable for distribution among or realisation for the benefit of creditors of the third party, the depositary delegating the functions to a third party shall adopt the following measures:

(a) in all cases, consider the following elements in the selection and appointment of the third party:

– the legal requirements or market practices related to the holding of client assets that could adversely affect UCITS’ rights during business as usual and in the event of insolvency of the third party;

– the financial condition, expertise and market reputation of the third party; and

– protection or lack thereof attendant upon the regulatory status of the third party;

(b) in case the third party is located outside the Union,

– make all reasonable efforts, including the receipt of independent legal advice, to understand the material effects of the contractual provisions governing the arrangement with the third party on the UCITS’ rights in respect of its assets, including how those contractual provisions would operate in the jurisdiction where such assets are held, including in the event of insolvency of the third party to which the depositary has delegated safekeeping duties;

– ensure that there are contractual provisions in its agreement with the third party allowing the termination of such agreement without undue delay in case the applicable insolvency laws and jurisprudence no longer guarantee the segregation of the UCITS’ assets in the event of insolvency of the third party or the conditions set out under these laws and jurisprudence are no longer fulfilled; and

– in case the depositary becomes aware that the applicable insolvency laws and jurisprudence no longer guarantee the segregation of the UCITS’ assets in the event of insolvency of the third party or the conditions set out under these laws and jurisprudence are no longer fulfilled, immediately inform the investment company or the management company on behalf of the UCITS of such a situation. The mere provision of information to the investment company or the management company on behalf of the UCITS shall not change the nature of the assets held by the third party, which shall continue to be held in custody.”

Hier der link zum Dokument der ESMA: http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-1183.pdf