Response to consultation on information for assessment of a proposed acquisition of qualifying holdings in issuers of ARTs under MiCAR
Go back
As a global, machine-readable, and readily available tool, the LEI provides an efficient means to identify the target entity seeking to acquire holdings, in turn increasing the transparency of such processes to the benefit of supervisors and market players alike. The obligation follows the example of requiring the LEI for counterparties to derivatives contracts as well as beneficiaries of counterparties under EMIR and the clients (buyer, seller) on whose behalf the investment firm executes transactions under MiFIR.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the LEI provides a detailed breakdown of the relationship between parent companies and their respective subsidiaries, as well as any changes processed in the governance structure over time (please consult the Global LEI Index; https://search.gleif.org/#/search/)). Such information highlights how the LEI can provide supervisors with a credible means of assessing the financial soundness of such target entities, as well as better understand ‘who owns who’ within this digital market place.
GLEIF suggests introducing a statement clarifying that the reported LEIs must conform with the Regulatory Oversight Committee policies (ROC) (https://www.leiroc.org/). This ensures that the reporting of the LEI evolves along with the global policy established by the ROC.
Question 1. Do you agree with the information request laid down in Article 1 and with the granularity envisaged for the information to be provided by proposed acquirers that are trusts, AIF or UCITS management companies or sovereign wealth funds?
The Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) supports the introduction of the ISO 17742 LEI as part of the information to be disclosed by acquirers of qualified holdings as stipulated under Art. 1 (2,d) of the proposed regulatory technical standards.As a global, machine-readable, and readily available tool, the LEI provides an efficient means to identify the target entity seeking to acquire holdings, in turn increasing the transparency of such processes to the benefit of supervisors and market players alike. The obligation follows the example of requiring the LEI for counterparties to derivatives contracts as well as beneficiaries of counterparties under EMIR and the clients (buyer, seller) on whose behalf the investment firm executes transactions under MiFIR.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the LEI provides a detailed breakdown of the relationship between parent companies and their respective subsidiaries, as well as any changes processed in the governance structure over time (please consult the Global LEI Index; https://search.gleif.org/#/search/)). Such information highlights how the LEI can provide supervisors with a credible means of assessing the financial soundness of such target entities, as well as better understand ‘who owns who’ within this digital market place.
GLEIF suggests introducing a statement clarifying that the reported LEIs must conform with the Regulatory Oversight Committee policies (ROC) (https://www.leiroc.org/). This ensures that the reporting of the LEI evolves along with the global policy established by the ROC.