Agefi Luxembourg - février 2025

Février 2025 21 AGEFI Luxembourg Fonds d’investissement By Anna MATEUSIAK, Counsel en Investment Management, Arendt &Medernach (See advert on page 1) C ombined assets of EU funds classified asArticle 8 andArti- cle 9 under SFDR reached EUR 6.1 trillion inQ4 2024, totalling 60%of the EU fundsmarket, ac- cording toMorningstar. The success of Article 8 andArti- cle 9 funds under SFDR and the objectives set by the SFDR ex- plain the enhanced scrutiny by national regulatory authorities to ensure proper implementation of the SFDR and the increasing num- ber of investor claims in cases of de- ceitful statements. In this context, Luxembourg UCITS management companies andAIFMs (authorised and registered) (IFM), as well as funds managers (i.e. “ administra- teur ” for a société anonyme , “ gérant ” for a société à re- sponsabilité limitée , a société en commandite simple or a société en commandite spéciale within the meaning of the Luxembourg law of 10 August 1915 on com- mercial companies (1915Law)) (Managers), should be well-prepared when implementing the SFDR, because this comes with responsibilities commen- surate to the ambitions set. Inessence, Regulation (EU) 2019/2088of 27Novem- ber 2019 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR) was adopted in the context of wider environmental and social initia- tives. It is in linewith theEUGreenDeal and theEU Action Plan on sustainable finance adopted in March 2018 as part of the EU Capital Markets Union’s aims to help steering capital to more sus- tainable investments: it aims to foster transparency regarding sustainable investments and to orient in- vestments in responsibleprojects for amore sustain- able economy. The SFDR covers the fund industry but is not specific to it. For a better understanding by investors of the sustainable impact of the relevant funds, funds are classifiedaccording to their sustainability characteristics and objectives between “Article 6” (that may or not consider sustainability risks but are, generally, not sustain- ability oriented), “Article 8” that pro- mote environment and social characteristics (knownas “light green funds”) and “Article 9” funds that have an environmental or social investment objective. The classification of financial products in either of the above categories is not intended to be a “labelling regime”, indicating how “green” a fund is, but a transparency framework Ac- cordingly, the classification in such categories triggers varying obli- gations, which are primarily imposed on IFMs. IFMs shall ensure that pre-contractual documents contain the appropriate disclosures. In addition, IFMs shall publish informationon theirwebsite and in the offeringdocuments. The level of information differs depending on the categorisation. IFMs shall also ensure the consistency of themarketing docu- ments. Then, depending on the funds categories, IFMs shall update their policies and processes (in- cluding risk management policy, remuneration policy and investment process) and generally re- view their organisation to cover the ESG aspects (e.g. in terms of monitoring of delegates, consis- tency of the service provider agreements, etc.). Pursuant to its annual report for the year 2023, the CSSF identified several weaknesses during its the- matic controls: 48%concerned “insufficient follow- up of sustainability risk andESGaspects described in the investment strategy” and 26% concerned “weaknesses in the supervision of the delegated portfolio managers”. Although the SFDR provides no penalty, the CSSF is entitled to sanction infringements of SFDR. Firstly, the Luxembourg law of 25 February 2022 on the implementation of SFDR allows the CSSF to impose administrative sanctions in the event of breach of the SFDR or against those that obstruct the exercise of theCSSF supervisory and investiga- tive powers, that fail to comply with the CSSF in- junctions or who knowingly provide the CSSF with inaccurate or incomplete information in re- sponse to requests. The latter is important to note because, on that basis, sanctions could impact the IFM, individual managers of the IFM and other stakeholders under the CSSF supervision, although, in practice, it remains rare that the CSSF sanctions the individual person. Interestingly enough, where imposing its first sanction on an IFM, the CSSF based its decision on the provisions of the law of 17 December 2010 on undertakings for collective investment, for failure to comply with the requirements imposed on UCITS management companies to have sound administrative procedures and internal control mechanisms and to comply with the rules of conduct . As the casemay be, the CSSFmay issue (i) a public statement specifying the identity of the responsible person and the nature of the violation, (ii) a tempo- rarybanon the exercise of themanagerial functions and/or (iii) an administrative fine. The penalties maybe cumulative.Areputational risk (admittedly the most important one) may arise from the public statement, leading to adouble penalty consisting of both a fine and a public disclosure that harms the reputation of the responsible person. In addition, the CSSF may impose the payment of compensation to investors of regulated funds, in the event of failure to complywith the investment lim- its set forth in the relevant funddocumentation (in- cluding the limits set for environmental and social aspects), based on Circular CSSF 24/854 regarding the protection of investors in cases of non-compli- ance with the investment rules. Lastly, IFMs may be liable based on civil law prin- ciples for breach of contract and, potentially, tort. Managers are not exempt from responsibility in cases of improper implementation of the SFDR or for deceitful SFDR disclosures. Managers are responsible for the approval of fund documentation. In this context, as agents (“ man- dataires ”) of companies, Managers shall act loyally to the relevant fund and its shareholders. In the event of deceitful information, theManagermaybe regarded as being in breach of that principle. Furthermore, Managers remain subject to provi- sions set forth in the 1915 lawon liabilities of direc- tors/ managers for misconduct vis-à-vis the funds, notably, as the case may be, for the improper im- plementation of the SFDR by the fund’s delegates. Indeed, asmanagers of funds,Managers shallmon- itor the activities of such funds’ delegates. Man- agers may face a civil liability if the relevant fund uses the actio mandati , which is a specific action against managers. By this tool, the fund itself de- cides to sue a Manager for a fault or omission that caused prejudice to the fund. The general meeting of shareholders of the fund would decide on the legal action by resolution adopted at the simple majority. Under some cir- cumstances, a minority investor is allowed to sue theManager directly on behalf of the fund ( actio ut singuli ). In some other cases, the limitedpartnership agreement should be consulted to determine the contractual sanctions. As the case may be, an investor – if they can prove a prejudice distinct from the one suffered by the fund – or a third party having suffered a prejudice as a result of the fact or omissionof aManager,may wish to sue the Manager on the basis of Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Luxembourg Civil Code. Managers of regulated funds may be exposed to regulatory actions by the CSSF. In view of the liability IFMs and Managers may incur, one may understand why some sponsors shied away fromclaiming responsible investments as part of their investment strategies. To mitigate these risks, it is key to assess the responsibilities of each stakeholder with regard to the obligations stemming from SFDR. SFDR requirements: which liability for whom? The success on market p compliance regulations. Whatever yo how comple unique-to- m legal, regula the best sol Let’s talk ab of your investments depends erformances as well as on with ever-changing legal and tax ur business goals and no matter x your transactions are, our arket combination of specialised tory and tax intelligence will find ution for you. out alternatives. f.com loyensloe f for funds and be many alternative Providing you wi yond s, th Le Groupe BEI enregistre des résultats record en 2024 E n 2024, leGroupe Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) a signé 89milliards d’euros de nouveaux financements. Il n’a jamais autant déployé de fi- nancements pour renforcer la sé- curitéénergétiqueenEurope,avec à la clé la mobilisation de plus de 100 milliards d’euros pour des projetsdeconstructionetderéno- vationd’infrastructuresayanttrait notamment aux réseaux et inter- connexions, aux énergies renou- velables, aux technologies à zéro émission nette, à l’efficacité éner- gétique et au stockage. La transition écologique, l’action en faveur du climat et la durabi- lité environnementale représen- tent près de 60% du total des financements. Les résultats préli- minaires témoignent une nou- velle fois d’une solide rentabilité. Parallèlement, les opérations à plus haut risque de la BEI à l’ap- pui des entreprises européennes les plus innovantes sont en forte augmentation. D’unmontant re- cordde 8milliardsd’euros, les in- vestissements en fondspropres et quasi-fonds propres de la BEI et du Fonds européen d’investisse- ment (FEI) devraient mobiliser 110 milliards d’euros de capital de croissance pour les jeunes pousses, les entreprises enexpan- sionet les innovateurs européens. En 2024, les financements à l’ap- pui d’investissements admissi- bles dans le secteur de la sécurité et de la défense ont doublé et l’objectif est d’en dou- bler encore le volume cette année. En outre, le Groupe BEI a sensiblement élargi ses critères d’admissibilité pour les projets à double usage. Sont désormais admissibles à un financement la protection des frontières, lamo- bilitémilitaire, le déminage et la décontamination, l’espace, la cy- bersécurité, les équipements an- tibrouillage, la protection des infrastructures critiques dans les fonds marins, la recherche-dé- veloppement et les drones. En 2025, le Groupe BEI entend porter son objectif de finance- ment global à 95 milliards d’eu- ros. Les initiatives phares visent à soutenir les champions tech- nologiques européens et un programme pour les technolo- gies européennes («TechEU»), lesmatières premières critiques, la gestion de l’eau, les investis- sements des petites et moyennes entreprises dans le domaine de l’efficacité énergé- tique et une plateforme dédiée pour la promotion du logement durable et abordable. Tout en augmentant sa puis- sance de frappe financière et son impact, leGroupe BEI progresse aussi nettement dans la réduc- tion des formalités administra- tives pour les clients. Il a rac- courci les délais de conclusion des opérations nécessaires pour approuver et déployer de nou- veaux financements. Au cours de l’année 2024, il a mis en place des procédures d’instruction simplifiées pour environ 40%de ses opérations. «En 2024, nous avons mis à dis- position des financements re- cord. Nous sommes prêts à soutenir lesprioritésde l’UEdans le cadre de ce nouveau mandat politique. Et notre action sera plus pertinente encore en 2025. Nousnous appuierons sur les ex- cellents résultats du Groupe BEI pour accroître l’impact de notre action à l’avenir. Nous renforce- rons la sécurité et la compétitivité de l’Europe en soutenant des in- vestissements stratégiques ambi- tieux», a déclaré Nadia Calviño, présidente du Groupe BEI, en présentant les résultats annuels duGroupe BEI à Bruxelles. Les financements engagés par le Groupe BEI en 2024 devraient soutenir l’approvisionnement en énergiepropredeprès de 15mil- lions de foyers, la création de jusqu’à 1,5 million d’emplois en Europe au cours des prochaines années, les avancées des théra- pies contre le cancer et la mise à dispositionde logements aborda- bles de la Croatie à la Lettonie. ©BEI