POLL: should Esma approve prospectuses?

Author: IFLR Correspondent | Published: 30 Oct 2017
Email a friend

Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.

In September, the European Commission published proposals to 'better integrate supervision for the capital markets union’. And while its aims of promoting jobs and growth in Europe are noble, some of its methods to do so under the proposal have been questioned.

One such suggestion has been to transfer the approval of certain prospectuses under the Prospectus Directive from national competent authorities (NCAs) to the European Securities and Markets Authority (Esma).

The proposals, called the Omnibus III regulation, suggest that Esma approves admissions to qualified investor-only regulated markets, asset-backed securities, specialist issuers and non-EU third country issuers.

But while European supervisory convergence is on the horizon – and in many cases already underway – some have questioned the move’s timing and intention.

With this in mind, IFLR is polling readers on the plans. Vote now on the right-hand side of the homepage, and to elaborate on your response in an entirely off-the-record interview, email tom.young@legalmediagroup.com

Should the power to approve certain prospectuses be transferred from national authorities to Esma under Omnibus III?

1.     Yes

2.     No

3.     Yes, after Esma’s other convergence work is complete

4.     Other

Results of past polls:

End of Libor: what next?

Mixed results for EU’s SSM

Jumpstarting the US IPO market




close Register today to read IFLR's global coverage

Get unlimited access to IFLR.com for 7 days*, including the latest regulatory developments in the global financial sector, updated daily.

  • Deal Analysis
  • Expert Opinion
  • Best Practice


*all IFLR's global coverage published in the last 3 months.

Read IFLR's global coverage whenever and wherever you want for 7 days with IFLR mobile app for iPad and iPhone

"The format of the Review has changed over the years; the high quality of its substantive content has not."
Lee C Buchheit, Cleary Gottlieb