FUND NEWS June 2012 Investment Fund Regulatory and Tax developments in selected jurisdictions Regulatory Content Issue 93 – Regulatory and Tax Developments in June 2012 European Union UCITS V, PRIPS and IMD proposals Page ESMA Guidelines on sound remuneration policies for AIFM Page ESMA proposes detailed rules on derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories Page Commission technical standards regarding Short Selling Page Agreement on EU Venture Capital and Social entrepreneurship funds Page Cyprus UCITS IV transposed Page France AMF consults on AIFMD Page AMF consults on Inducements Page The Netherlands AIFMD Implementation Regulatory News European Union European Commission presents legislative package to improve investor protection On July 2012, the European Commission (EC) proposed a package of measures to rebuild consumer trust in financial markets and align rules across competing products The package is composed of three legislative proposals: a proposal aiming at updating the UCITS framework (UCITS V), a proposal for a regulation on the ‘’key information document for packaged retail investment products’’ (PRIPS) and a revision of the Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD) UCITS V One year after the entry into force of the UCITS IV Directive, the EC published a UCITS revision – called ‘‘UCITS V’’ – which focuses on harmonizing the role and liability of UCITS depositaries, the remuneration of UCITS managers and Page UK The FSA has proposed to delay for a year the Page implementation of COBS 14.4 Tax Content The Netherlands CAA with USA re closed FGR Page 10 UK Reclaims of excess Withholding Tax deducted from dividend and interest income in Taiwan – a ruling for OEICs Page 10 Luxembourg Aberdeen E-alert Page 11 Fund News – June 2012 sanctions The aim of the proposal is to enhance investor protection in the wake of the financial crisis, the Lehman bankruptcy and the Madoff fraud The proposal takes the form of a Directive It will now go to the European Parliament and the Council for their consideration under the co-decision procedure Once they reach agreement, Member States usually have two years to transpose the provisions into their national laws and regulations, meaning that the new rules could apply, according to the European Commission, by the end of 2014 By this date, the necessary package of implementing measures should also be adopted The legislative proposal also strengthens rules relating to delegation of depositary’s tasks and adds clarification on the depositary’s liability The depositary will be liable for the loss by the depositary or a third party to whom the custody of financial instruments has been delegated, unless it can prove that the loss has arisen as a result of an external event beyond its reasonable control, the consequences of which would have been unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary Furthermore, to the contrary of the AIFMD, the depositary liability cannot be delegated or transferred through a contract with third parties Depositary rules Managers remuneration The proposal aims at establishing more detailed depositary rules which are essentially the same requirements as those within the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) Each UCITS fund is required to have a single depositary, with a written contract The EC also wants to define more precisely the types of entities which can act as depositaries – a credit institution, an investment firm subject to capital adequacy standards or an investment company or management companies acting on behalf of the UCITS that was appointed as a custodian before the entry into force of this Directive The proposal also introduces several detailed duties for the depositary such as safekeeping, cash monitoring and oversight duties The depositary will need to ensure it does not undertake activities that could create a conflict of interest between the UCITS, the investors, the Management Company and the depositary The draft UCITS V Directive aligns with the AIFMD in stating that remuneration policies should be put in place to ensure the sound management of risks and control of risk-taking behaviour, for those categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profiles of the UCITS they manage The remuneration policies and practices have to cover salaries and discretionary pension benefits Remuneration policies should also be designed to discourage any risk-taking which is inconsistent with the UCITS risk profile or constitutional documents and should help to prevent conflicts of interests and protect investor interests There is also a requirement for the UCITS management company to provide a disclosure in the annual report Furthermore, the proposal lists the principles that the Management Company will have to comply with in order to have remuneration policies that are appropriate to their size, internal organization and nature, scope and complexity of their activities Sanctions The proposal allows national authorities to take administrative sanctions against the management body or any other individuals who under national law are responsible for the breach The draft UCITS V Directive requires that the sanctions should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive It also requires Member States competent authorities to publish any sanction or measure imposed for breach of the national provisions adopted following the implementation of this Directive without undue delay, including information on the type and nature of the breach and the identity of persons responsible for it, unless such publication would seriously jeopardise the stability of financial markets A catalogue of sanctions is drafted and the proposal details the type of administrative sanctions and measures the national competent authority applies The Commission’s proposal is available here (provisional version) Fund News – June 2012 PRIPS The PRIPS proposal aims to improve transparency in the investment market for retail investors For this, the consumers should be informed in a short and standardized format that is easy to understand: the ``Key Information Document`` (KID) The European Commission seeks to help retail investors to make a more informed decision on whether an investment is right for them or not and be able to compare investment products with each other Each KID will have to follow a common standard as regards structure, content and presentation and will need to provide consumers with information on the product’s main features, risks and costs associated with the investment in that product The KID will serve as a stand-alone document in the sense that retail investors should not be required to read other documents to be able to understand the key features of the investment product and take an informed investment decision, and it should be clearly distinct from marketing materials However, the proposal only requires manufacturers of investment products to produce a KID when the products are to be sold to retail investors KIDs not need to be produced where the products are to be sold to professional investors only The Commission’s proposal also sets out that it does not apply to insurance products that not offer investment opportunities as well as occupational pension schemes or pension products for which the employer is required by law to contribute financially and where the employee has no choice as to the pension provider Furthermore, the Regulation does not apply to certain securities that are already covered by the Prospectus Directive and other securities which not embed a derivative Also the proposal does not apply to direct investments of retail investors (e.g directly buying shares in companies or sovereign bonds) as in this case banks, insurers and fund managers are not “packaging” the investment into a product to be marketed and sold to retail investors Finally, simple savings products are also not covered, because they are easier to understand and compare The proposal takes the form of a Regulation and would therefore not require implementation into national law but will be directly applicable in all Member States shortly after it gets adopted The Regulation would also be supported by detailed delegated/implementing acts to standardize the presentation of information required by the Regulation as far as possible The Commission’s proposal here (provisional version) will now go to the European Parliament and the Council for their consideration under the co-decision procedure The final Regulation is expected to be in place by the end of 2014 While such disclosures for UCITS have already been introduced by UCITS IV, the PRIPS proposal wants to introduce this concept to all other packaged retail investment products that are being offered to retail investors The list of products for which a KID will be required includes all types of investment funds, insurance-based investments and retail structured products, in addition to private pensions The proposal requires all manufacturers of these investment products (e.g investment fund managers, insurers, banks) to produce a KID for each investment product Fund News – June 2012 IMD The European Commission has also published a proposed Directive to amend and replace the Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD), known as "IMD 2" The IMD regulates selling practices for all insurance products, including both general insurance products (e.g motor and household insurance) and those containing investment elements The proposed IMD Directive seeks to improve regulation in the retail insurance market and policyholder protection The main aspects of the Commission’s proposal are: • Expansion of the scope of application of IMD to all distribution channels • Rules on conflict of interest • Administrative sanctions • Measures for breach of key provisions of IMD • Rules to enhance the suitability and objectiveness of advice (disclosure of actual amounts of commission) • Procedure for cross-border entries to insurance markets across the EU The Commission’s proposal is available here (provisional version) ESMA proposes Guidelines on sound remuneration policies for AIFM On 28 June 2012 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a 104 page consultation paper (ref: ESMA 2012/406) setting out formal proposals for guidelines on sound remuneration policies for Managers that fall under the scope of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) The remuneration requirements will apply to all AIFMs which are within the scope of the Directive, however those non-EU AIFMs that use the national private placement regimes to market to professional investors in the EU will only be subject to the rules on remuneration disclosure The guidelines are broadly aligned with remuneration policies in other financial sectors and ESMA has cooperated closely with the European Banking Authority (EBA) in drafting the proposals According to ESMA the remuneration policies should principally address alignment of interests between the fund investors and the portfolio managers who make investments on behalf of the funds The guidelines are divided into three main parts: governance, risk alignment and transparency with the principle of proportionality relevant for all three parts For the purposes of the guidelines remuneration consists of all forms of payments or benefits paid by the AIFM or paid by the AIF itself, including fixed or variable monetary and non-monetary benefits This would include carried interest, shares, options and pension contributions Ancillary payments or benefits that are part of a general, nondiscretionary, AIFM-wide policy and pose no incentive effects in terms of risk assumption can be excluded from the definition of remuneration for the purposes of the AIFMD-specific risk alignment remuneration requirements Any payment made directly by the AIF to the benefit of the selected staff which consists of a pro-rata return on any investment made by those staff members into the AIF should not be subject to any of the remuneration requirements Fees and commissions received by intermediaries and external service providers in case of outsourced activities are not covered by the guidelines The consultation runs until 27 September and ESMA aims to publish a final report before the end of 2012, so that they will be in place in advance of the AIFMD transposition deadline of 22 July 2013 The full paper is available via the following web link: Fund News – June 2012 ESMA proposes detailed rules on derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories • On 25 June 2012 ESMA launched a • consultation paper (ref: ESMA 2012/379) on technical standards under the European Markets and Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) governing OTC derivatives, central counterparties (CCP) and trade repositories that was adopted by Parliament on 29 March 2012 Defining the trade repositories’ data to be made available to relevant authorities; rules also detail how ESMA is to determine the shares which are exempt from the Short Selling Regulation by virtue of their principal trading venue Setting the information to be provided to ESMA for the authorisation and supervision of trade repositories The consultation closes on August 2012 and the final draft standards are intended to be submitted to the EU Commission for endorsement by 30 The requirements set out in the draft September 2012 The 293 page technical standards include: being outside the Union In order to fully implement the Short Selling Regulation, two final measures – a Regulatory Technical Standard and a Delegated Act – are expected to be adopted shortly The technical standards are available here: consultation paper is available via the following web link: • • Defining the framework for the application of the clearing obligation; Specifying the risk mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives not centrally cleared; Commission adopts technical standards regarding Short Selling Political agreement on EU Venture Capital and Social entrepreneurship funds On 29 June 2012 the Danish EU • A comprehensive set of organisational, conduct of business and prudential requirements for CCPs; Specifying the details of derivatives transactions that need to be reported to trade repositories; reached a political agreement about a standards, based on the work of the European label for venture capital and European Securities and Markets social entrepreneurship funds in the EU Authority (ESMA), setting out the The Regulations which were initially detailed rules aimed at reducing the risk proposed in December 2011 will need to of settlement failures linked to naked be officially adopted by Council and short selling, as well as the means by Parliament and will enter into force which market participants should thereafter No transposition into national disclose significant short positions to the law will be required The announcement market The technical standards specify • Laying down the requirements for the application of exemptions to non-financial counterparties and intragroup transactions Presidency announced that it has Commission adopted technical • On 29 June 2012 the European is available here: the details of the so-called "locate rule," which ensures that short sales not result in a failure to deliver The new Fund News – June 2012 action initiated by transposing the AIFs’ eligibility rules for institutional the Paris financial centre more UCITS IV transposed investors, as well as reviewing the UCITS IV Directive, in order to make Cyprus investors attractive to fund managers and investors On 15 June 2012 the UCI Law of 2012 Ensure a level playing field for depositaries The Committee came into effect after the Cyprus House transposition of the UCITS IV Directive analysed the challenges that the the Directive to give fresh impetus Seizing the opportunities created by AIFM Directive raises for French to French fund managers of Representatives passed into law the depositaries in terms of competition, given that French The Committee recommends depositaries are already compliant to maintaining a single management a large extent with the provisions It company regime, which can be recommends consolidating the modulated through a specific current framework and seizing the program of operations that matches opportunities created by the the features of each type of On 15 June 2012 the Autorité des Directive to develop additional strategy With regard to the Marchés Financiers (AMF), the French activities The Committee also calls requirement for the risk control regulator, launched a public consultation for a level playing field between function, the report advocates based on a draft report published by the French depositaries and branches of applying the proportionality principle, AIFMD Stakeholders’ Committee (the foreign investment services for example, in the case of Committee) that contains twenty-five providers managers of private equity or real recommendations for transposing the estate funds France Public consultation by the AMF regarding the transposition of the AIFM Directive AIFM Directive 2012 The full text is available via the The draft report highlights the The consultation will close on July Reshaping the range of French following web link: http://www.amf- funds to make it clearer france.org/documents/general/10443_1 substantial lead enjoyed by the French fund management industry in terms of The Committee recommends compliance with the Directive’s reshaping and simplifying the requirements and the role that some regulatory range of French funds funds, such as private equity funds, play pdf into three categories: in financing the French economy The draft report calls for the Directive to • • UCITS, • AIFs marketed to professional investors be implemented faithfully and makes recommendations in the following areas: Stepping up international promotion of the Paris financial centre The Committee recommends promoting French fund management of alternative investment funds (AIFs) internationally by intensifying the AIFs marketed to retail investors (including retail nonUCITS or other specialised retail funds) The report also recommends harmonising subscription thresholds designed to ensure that the most complex and riskiest products are marketed only to professional Fund News – June 2012 The purchase of an occasional Public consultation by the AMF regarding inducements received in the course of the marketing and indirect distribution of financial instruments Where the portfolio manager makes On June 2012 the AMF launched a conflict of interest may be managed service complemented by additional in two different ways: either by a services during the time span of the complete absence of inducements investment that would lead to (management companies not having continuous remuneration over the financial instruments to pay for the distribution of their same period The consultation presents a summary of handover of payments to clients findings taken from an analysis of some (thus eliminating the conflict of 50 reports on these areas sent to the interest arising from the payment by AMF by investment services compliance the suppliers of various officers However, it does not cover inducements, since the portfolio matters relating to remuneration and managers remuneration is not benefits received by trading facilities affected by the choices he makes that execute client orders on behalf of his client) The AMF investment decisions on behalf of service that would lead to a once off the client, the AMF considers that payment this could lead to a conflict of interest According to the AMF, this public consultation concerning inducements received in the course of the marketing and indirect distribution of The purchase of an occasional UCITS any longer), or by the full also mentions that to restore their The following are the main positions and September 2012 The full text is available via the following web link: http://www.amffrance.org/documents/general/10435_1 pdf profit margins, portfolio managers recommendations of the AMF: The consultation will close on should increase their fixed management fee • Ensure that the receipt of remuneration or monetary benefit • Improving customer service and the does not compromise the obligation duty to act in the best interests of to act in the best interests of the clients in the provision of client investment advice The AMF recommends verification The AMF makes a distinction that the expected level of between remuneration received in inducements for a given product is the long run and remuneration in line with the normal practices of incentives with threshold effects other product providers of comparable French products • Improving customer service in reception and transmission of client • Improve customer service and the orders services and execution duty to act in the best interests of services clients in the provision of portfolio management services The AMF also recommends that when entering into a relationship, the client should be able to choose between: Fund News – June 2012 The Netherlands However, the proposed law does not use the word “alternative” when AIFMD Implementation referring to the first type of investment On 19 April 2012 the Ministry of Finance government expects that most submitted a legislative proposal to the investment institutions will fall into that Dutch Parliament for the implementation category and the name could otherwise of the Alternative Investment Fund be misleading Therefore, all alternative Managers Directive (AIFMD) The investment funds are referred to simply proposed law will amend the Dutch Act as investment institutions Also on Financial Supervision (DFSA), the provisions for the two categories are set Dutch Civil Code, the Dutch Economic out in separate sections of the DFSA institutions because the Dutch Offences Act and several tax laws Marketing to retail investors Together with this law, the Ministry of Finance published an explanatory The proposed law sets out that memorandum and a report issued after marketing of AIFs to non-professional the Council of State had rendered its investors in the Netherlands will be advice In addition, the Dutch Ministry of subject to additional “Netherlands- Finance will adopt a set of rules specific” requirements These implementing the AIFMD via requirements will relate to additional regulations investor disclosures (e.g KID) and further investor protection rules The Proposal seeks to implement the (affiliation to the Dutch dispute AIFMD on a 1:1 basis However, the resolution institute – KiFiD) However Ministry of Finance has made use of the exact requirements for this are set their freedom of implementation in to be determined by regulations at a several instances where the AIFMD later point explicitly permits stricter requirements or adjustments of the implementation by the Member States Categories of investment institutions The Proposal differentiates between two types of “investment institutions”: • Investment institutions that are referred to in the AIFMD as alternative investment funds • UCITS relation to shares or units of funds; • reception and transmission of orders in relation to financial instruments AIFM from designated states Currently AIFM from certain countries not require a licence to offer services in the Netherlands as they are assumed to be subject to adequate supervision in their home state These designated states are Luxembourg, France, Ireland, Malta, the UK, Guernsey, Jersey and the US (if the manager is SEC registered) Following the implementation of the AIFMD, this designated states regime will become obsolete for EU-AIFM However, the proposed law sets out that AIFMs from Guernsey, Jersey and the US can still rely on the designated states regime after the proposed law comes into effect Depositaries The Proposal introduces a lighter depositary regime for certain closed-end funds that not allow redemptions Additional services within years after the initial investment The Proposal allows AIFM’s to perform “non-core” activities (mentioned in Article 6.4(b) of the AIFMD) that fall within the scope of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), without needing to obtain a separate MiFID licence A Dutch AIFM would therefore be able to perform following additional services: instruments that need to be held in and not invest into financial custody (e.g real estate and private equity funds) Managers of these types of funds will be able to appoint an entity which carries out depositary functions as part of its professional registration recognized by law or legal or regulatory provisions or rules of professional conduct (e.g notaries and lawyers) The • investment advice; specific requirements for this will be set out in regulations at a later point • safe-keeping and administration in Fund News – June 2012 Private placement regime licence before performing any activities as AIFM The proposed law provides that current private placement rules will stay in force However, they can only be relied upon The bill is available here (in Dutch only) UK The FSA has proposed to delay for a year the implementation of COBS 14.4 by non-EU AIFMs and “small EU AIFMs” (i.e AIFMs which are below the threshold of the AIFMD) All other AIFMs will have to obtain an AIFM licence from the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) In addition, AIFMs that wish to rely on private placement will need to register with the AFM, perform regular filings concerning their activities and notify the AFM if they no longer meet the conditions set out in the proposed law In its quarterly consultation paper number 33 (“CP 12/11”) the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) has proposed to defer its implementation of COB 14.4 for 12 months to 31 December 2013 The FSA will consult further but has emphasised that it is not minded to change COBS 14.4 which will require platform operators and nominee companies to provide information and voting rights to the beneficial owners of Tax units in authorised funds The FSA The current Dutch tax regime sets out between direct investing and holding that an entity is considered to be a tax units via a nominee are not acceptable resident in the Netherlands if its and must be reduced, however it effective place of management is in the accepts that there are issues that need Netherlands The proposed amendment to be resolved before implementation to the tax law sets out that AIFs and will consult further once this authorised or registered for the first time extension is in place in another EU Member State will not be considered as a Dutch tax resident even if managed by a Dutch AIFM, provided that (a) the AIF is incorporated in that other EU Member State, and (b) the AIF invests passively (in accordance with the special Dutch tax regime of the Fiscal maintains the view that the differences CP 12/11 is available via this link and the content is in chapter on pages 42 to 45, and appendix (one page): http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/cp/cp 12-11.pdf Investment Institution) Timing Dutch AIFMs that are authorised before the new legislation enters into effect must apply for a licence no later than 22 July 2014 Dutch AIFMs that become active after the new legislation has entered into force will have to obtain a Fund News – June 2012 Tax News UK The Netherlands CAA with USA re closed FGR The Netherlands have concluded a new Competent Authority Agreement (CAA) with the USA regarding the tax treatment of a Dutch closed FGR ('besloten fonds voor gemene between the Netherlands and the USA In a earlier CAA (concluded in 2007) it was already agreed to treat a closed FGR as tax transparent in case of Dutch qualifying tax exempt entities (such as rekening') pension funds) investing in it A closed FGR is treated as tax Previously, the Netherlands have transparent for Dutch tax purposes This implies that all income and gains derived through such FGR are attributed to the investors in proportion to their participations in the FGR FGRs are frequently used for asset pooling by concluded similar CAAs with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom Furthermore, in the Protocol to the new Germany-Netherlands tax treaty (expected to be effective as of January 2014) it is stated that the closed pension funds and other investors FGR will be treated as tax transparent It In the new CAA the US tax authorities countries will follow confirm that a closed FGR will also be regarded as tax transparent for the application of the tax treaty concluded is expected that agreements with other The CAA is available via the following web link: Reclaims of excess Withholding Tax deducted from dividend and interest income in Taiwan – a ruling for OEICs Tax ruling No.10104553490 was issued by the Taiwan Ministry of Finance (“MOF”) on June 2012, and states that UK OEICs are able to apply for the reduced withholding rate pursuant to the Taiwan-UK Double Taxation agreement provided specified documents are submitted A translation prepared by KPMG Taiwan for your reference can be found here Clarifications from the Taiwan MOF have provided the necessary detail for successful reclaims of withholding taxes to be filed with the Taiwanese tax authorities Historically, the rates of tax agreed under the tax treaty with Taiwan have not been forthcoming due to the administrative difficulties encountered However, MOF Interpretation Letters provided in 2007 and a subsequent ruling for Authorised Unit Trusts (in 2009) clarified the position to the extent that successful reclaims of withholding tax have now been processed over the last few years The recent ruling will now ensure that the same will apply for UK OEICs providing certain criteria are met The process in Taiwan is complicated by the fact that the Foreign Institutional Investor must appoint a tax or business agent in Taiwan in order to apply for the necessary approval letters from the 10 Fund News – June 2012 National Tax Administration Offices and provide a number of pieces of Luxembourg New KPMG Publication documentary evidence in order to support their claim The documentary evidence required is also significantly more comprehensive than in other reclaim markets and differs between Aberdeen E-alert The latest Aberdeen E-Alert Issue 201209 (tax newsletter focusing on Evolving Investment Management Regulation: A clear path ahead? funds and corporate investors withholding tax reclaims based on the In addition to the clarification on reclaims developments in Sweden with the We are pleased to announce the release the MOF also detailed procedures reimbursement of WHT for Luxembourg of Evolving Investment Management available to obtain relief at source on FCPs confirmed Regulation: A clear path ahead? dividend and interest income Again investors will need to appoint a tax agent or business agent in Taiwan in order to make the necessary applications Aberdeen case law) discusses positive The full text of the e-alert is available via the following web link Regulators around the globe have continued to develop regulation implementing existing G20 decisions and continue to consult on additional Reclaims of withholding tax can be made within five years from the date of remittance to the local tax office by the tax withholder of the taxes withheld from the payments of dividend and measures to take This report provides investment managers with an overview of the regulatory landscape, a summary of upcoming regulations and the key interest income Therefore, potential implications for businesses It highlights claims can be made for excess taxes how the volume and complexity of withheld from payments of dividends regulatory change being implemented will and interests since 2007 and KPMG in result in an untraveled road ahead for the the UK would encourage investors to review their receipts of these income payments since June 2007 investment management industry This report is part of our “Evolving KPMG in the UK has considerable Regulation” series, following our reports experience of making these claims, Evolving insurance regulation and Evolving including appointing KPMG in Taiwan to act as tax agent: if you would like help with a claim please get in touch with your usual Tax & Pensions contact or banking regulation produced by the Financial Services Regulatory Centers of Excellence Simon Chapman (email: simon.chapman@kpmg.co.uk tel: +44 The report is available here: 161 2464408) 11 Fund News – June 2012 Publications Contact us Dee Ruddy Senior Manager T: + 352 22 5151 7369 E: dee.ruddy@kpmg.lu Charles Muller Partner T: +352 22 5151 7950 E: charles.muller@kpmg.lu Audit Nathalie Dogniez Partner T: + 352 22 5151 6253 E: nathalie.dogniez@kpmg.lu Tax Georges Bock Partner T: + 352 22 5151 5522 E: georges.bock@kpmg.lu Advisory Vincent Heymans Partner T: +352 22 5151 7917 E: vincent.heymans@kpmg.lu www.kpmg.lu The evolution of an industry – 2012 KPMG/AIMA Global Hedge Fund Survey here: Dodd-Frank for Foreign Financial Institutions Geared up for change? here: The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation © 2012 KPMG Luxembourg S.à r.l., a Luxembourg private limited company, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity All rights reserved The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International 12 ... Regulation” series, following our reports experience of making these claims, Evolving insurance regulation and Evolving including appointing KPMG in Taiwan to act as tax agent: if you would like... 2" The IMD regulates selling practices for all insurance products, including both general insurance products (e.g motor and household insurance) and those containing investment elements The proposed... regarding inducements received in the course of the marketing and indirect distribution of financial instruments Where the portfolio manager makes On June 2012 the AMF launched a conflict of interest