Brussels, 16/02/2016 (Agence Europe) - The first exchange of views at the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee (ECON) on the draft regulation to amend the rules in the prospectus that a company seeking to raise capital must publish when informing potential investors, proved quite consensual between the different political groups.
Philippe De Backer (ALDE, Belgium), the rapporteur on this dossier, noted at the end of the session that the questions identified during the different contributions made by the shadow rapporteurs were quite similar. De Backer welcomed the simplification of the prospectus summary and the slimmed down versions for SMEs and regular issuers. He explained that his main concern involved ensuring convergence between member states, convergence of rules, convergence of thresholds and the convergence of the different national authorities' procedures. He also indicated that they would require further clarification about Article 15 and the specific regime applicable to SMEs, as well as greater inclusion of flexibility in the streamlined system for secondary issues (Article 14) and the universal registration document (Article 9).
Speaking on behalf of the S&D, Neena Gill from the United Kingdom warned against a “one size fits all” approach. She said that the text did not sufficiently tackle the different existing elements: the prospectuses for equity, debt and structured financial products. She also highlighted the need to strike the right balance between protecting investors and simplifying publication of the prospectus. Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom) reiterated these concerns. Scott Cato, however, said that more work needs to be done on this point and she was particularly critical of the two-day period in which investors can withdraw after the final offer being made, which she thought was too short.
De Backer, Tom Vandenkendelaere (EPP, Belgium) and Beatrix von Storch (ECR, Germany) also mentioned the planned room for manoeuvre for implementing measures (level II). The two levels should be recalibrated, Vandenkendelaere stated, who also added that there was a “need to make sure implementation was feasible and clear” and that there were “a lot of delegated acts”. The two Belgian MEPs also mentioned the system of responsibility applicable in third countries which De Backer thought should be subject to a rethink. Still on the question of third countries, the shadow rapporteur from the ECR criticised the provision on the obligation applicable to third country issuers of appointing a representative. “I think that this could constitute discrimination”, he said, not seeing a “reasonable basis” for this.
On a more general note, the GUE/NGL MEP, Miguel Viegas from Portugal, said that he was concerned that the EU could possibly be copying what was being done in the US although they had a different situation in the EU. He warned that trying to legislate by erasing all cultural, economic and social differences that made up the EU would not produce any results.
At the end of the exchange of views, De Backer concluded: “Let's make sure investors get information they need to make an informed decision, nothing more nothing less.” An examination of the draft report is planned for 7 April, the deadline for submitting amendments is 19 April, the debate is planned on 23 May and the committee vote on 19 June. (Original version in French by Elodie Lamer)