ECJ Khorassani Case: (Re)Defining the Scope of MIFID II Regulated Distribution?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F19%3A10421367" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/19:10421367 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Rgu~n_fgYg" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Rgu~n_fgYg</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

ECJ Khorassani Case: (Re)Defining the Scope of MIFID II Regulated Distribution?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The scope of activities in financial markets which are regulated as distribution of financial instruments and services is to a significant degree determined by the contents of an investment service of reception and transmission of orders in relation to financial instruments in the meaning of MiFID II. The issue has been quite recently influenced by the European Court of Justice which stated in the judgement in Khorassani case that the relevant investment service does not include brokering with a view to concluding a contract covering portfolio management services. The paper examines possible impacts of the judgement on distribution scenarios utilizing brokering of framework contracts between clients and investment firms leading to purchase or sale of financial instruments. It aims on answering the following question: does such distribution scenario present provision of investment service of reception and transmission of orders in the meaning (re)defined by ECJ? The answer has crucial impact on the regulatory regime of the respective activities as well as related duties of the broker (distributor). In case the answer is positive, such brokering would be generally subject to rather demanding MiFID II rules. In case it is not, the brokering would fall out of scope of MiFID II. The answer must be based on case-by-case analysis. The content of the respective contract and related documents, the business model of the investment services provider, its marketing strategy and the extent of its authorization should be considered. The material activity of the broker as well as content of a possible agreement between the broker and the investment services provider is also relevant.

Název v anglickém jazyce

ECJ Khorassani Case: (Re)Defining the Scope of MIFID II Regulated Distribution?

Popis výsledku anglicky

The scope of activities in financial markets which are regulated as distribution of financial instruments and services is to a significant degree determined by the contents of an investment service of reception and transmission of orders in relation to financial instruments in the meaning of MiFID II. The issue has been quite recently influenced by the European Court of Justice which stated in the judgement in Khorassani case that the relevant investment service does not include brokering with a view to concluding a contract covering portfolio management services. The paper examines possible impacts of the judgement on distribution scenarios utilizing brokering of framework contracts between clients and investment firms leading to purchase or sale of financial instruments. It aims on answering the following question: does such distribution scenario present provision of investment service of reception and transmission of orders in the meaning (re)defined by ECJ? The answer has crucial impact on the regulatory regime of the respective activities as well as related duties of the broker (distributor). In case the answer is positive, such brokering would be generally subject to rather demanding MiFID II rules. In case it is not, the brokering would fall out of scope of MiFID II. The answer must be based on case-by-case analysis. The content of the respective contract and related documents, the business model of the investment services provider, its marketing strategy and the extent of its authorization should be considered. The material activity of the broker as well as content of a possible agreement between the broker and the investment services provider is also relevant.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Prague Law Working Paper Series [online]

ISSN

2336-5811

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2019

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

III

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

12

Strana od-do

1-12

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—