Initial meeting

Feb 05, 2024

Raising Money via the Capital Market – What Financial Information Must Be Included in a Securities Prospectus & a Securities Information Document (WIB)?

As an alternative to a bank loan, companies can raise money from investors via the capital market. This can be done through a variety of financial instruments. The most common and best known in this context are stocks as equity instruments and bonds for raising debt or hybrid capital. The financial instruments can be represented classically in securities certificates or in electronic form. Irrespective of the form of the instrument used to raise capital, however, it should be noted that an information document must be published in the case of a public offer to a large number of retail investors. In the case of large-volume issues, this is generally a securities prospectus. The information that must be included in the prospectus is specified in the Prospectus Regulation and other accompanying regulations. For issues of up to EUR 8 million in Germany, there is the alternative option of using a securities information document (WIB) of up to four pages in length. The content requirements of the WIB are based on the German Securities Prospectus Act (WpPG). One important piece of information for investors is the financial situation of the issuer. Accordingly, it is regularly required that historical financial information be included in the documentation. Particularly in the case of young or small companies as issuers, it is therefore necessary to check in advance whether they can meet the requirements.

Securities Prospectus has the Strictest Requirements

The requirements for historical financial information are the strictest for a securities prospectus under the Prospectus Regulation. For equity securities such as stocks offered to retail investors, the audited historical financial information for the last three years must be included as well as an auditor’s report for each financial year. In the case of consolidated financial statements, these must at least be included. Where the issuer is required to prepare financial statements in accordance with international accounting standards, this financial information must be included. Should the issuer not be obliged to do so, the financial information may also be prepared in accordance with national accounting standards such as the German Commercial Code (HGB). In this case, it must contain at least the balance sheet, the income statement, an overview of all changes in equity, the cash flow statement, the accounting methods and explanatory notes. In these cases, smaller companies in particular must check whether their accounting meets the specified requirements or whether they may have to prepare additional financial information in accordance with the aforementioned requirements. The same applies, with a few simplifications, to the historical financial information for non-equity securities for small investors such as bonds. Here, the period to be reported is two years instead of three.

Simplifications for SMEs and Small Volume Issues

Under the Prospectus Regulation, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have the option of drawing up a so-called EU Growth Prospectus. In terms of content, this has fewer requirements than a regular securities prospectus. This also applies to the financial information. For example, only the last two financial years have to be included instead of three in the case of equity securities. If the balance sheet is prepared in accordance with national accounting standards, no cash flow statement and no statement of changes in equity must be presented. In the case of non-equity securities, only the last financial year must be included, and no cash flow statement must be included if the issuer prepares its financial statements in accordance with national accounting standards. A WIB can be used for issues of up to EUR 8 million in Germany. In the case of a WIB, the issuer’s debt-equity ratio calculated on the basis of the most recently prepared annual financial statements must be included. Furthermore, a reference to the most recent annual financial statements must be included and it must be stated where these can be obtained. These simplifications can make the preparation of the prospectus or WIB much easier, especially for smaller and young companies, as they can result in no new financial reports having to be prepared.

FIN LAW

I.  https://fin-law.de

E. info@fin-law.de

subscribe to Newsletter

    Contact

    info@fin-law.de

    Jan 29, 2024

    Asset Referenced Token – What Exactly Are ART Under MiCAR?

    Titles III and IV of the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) will become legally effective in the European Union on June 30, 2024. From this date, issuers of Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs) and E-Money Tokens (EMTs) will require authorization from BaFin or the competent supervisory authority in their country of domicile to issue such tokens. But what types of tokens will actually qualify as ARTs under MiCAR? While the MiCAR definition of E-Money Tokens requires the value of the token to be pegged to the value of an official currency, the interpretation of the MiCAR definition for Asset- Referenced Tokens is much more difficult. According to this definition, those crypto assets that are not E-Money Tokens and that purport to maintain value stability by reference to other values, rights or currencies or combinations thereof are to constitute Asset-Related Tokens. A particular problem with the definition is the requirement of stability of value, as it remains unclear what specific requirements will be placed in this regard.

    When Does a Token Have a Stable Value?

    According to the definition in MiCAR, the decisive factor for the qualification of a token as an ART is, in particular, the question of whether the token is intended to create a stable value. In principle, many types of tokens could be described as referencing assets, as assets of all kinds could be considered here. This could also include, for example, tokens that are used to digitally represent objects from the real world. Examples would be tokenized collectible playing cards or other fungible collectibles. However, the definition of Asset-Referenced Tokens also presupposes that value stability is to be maintained. Unfortunately, the MiCAR does not specify the term “stable value”, so that it is questionable when a stable value is given in the required sense. In any case, it will not be sufficient in this context if the value of a token is merely linked to the value of an object in the real world. In such cases, the value of the token can always be determined on the basis of the value of the reference object. However, the value cannot then necessarily be described as stable.

    Regulation for Asset-Referenced Tokens Targets Parallel Currencies

    Historically, the regulation of both E-Money Tokens and Asset-Referenced Tokens goes back to the intention of the legislator to strictly regulate the creation of parallel currencies in the form of tokens. The reason for the inclusion of the regulations on ART and E-Money Tokens was the now abandoned plan of the Meta Group to create the substitute currency “Diem”. Taking this legislative objective into account, the value stability required in the definition of ART must at least be suitable for keeping the value of the relevant tokens stable enough to allow them to be used as a parallel currency. Nevertheless, the contours of the characteristic of value stability remain blurred. However, a reliable interpretation aid can be expected in the form of the technical regulatory standards on ART still to be developed by ESMA.

    Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

    I.  https://fin-law.de

    E. info@fin-law.de

    The competent lawyer for questions regarding a BaFin license under MiCAR and advice on Asset-Referenced Tokens (ART) in our law firm is Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London).

    subscribe to Newsletter

      Contact

      info@fin-law.de

      Jan 15, 2024

      SEC Approves Exchange-Traded Bitcoin ETFs – Is This Also Possible in Germany?

      On January 10, 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the listing and trading of a number of shares in Bitcoin Spot Exchange Traded Funds (ETF). Spot ETF in this context means that the fund tracks the up-to-the-second Bitcoin price on a one-to-one basis. Furthermore, the fund actually holds bitcoins. This makes it possible for institutional investors to invest in Bitcoin without having to purchase Bitcoin directly. The SEC has for many years objected to the approval of Bitcoin ETFs, but now sees many advantages in the approval. This is because investing in regulated products such as ETFs also entails information obligations towards investors.  Of course, there is also ongoing supervision by the SEC. For example, the existing regulations on investment funds and standards of conduct for fund providers and managers apply to the purchase and sale of approved Bitcoin ETFs. Thus, broker-dealers who recommend investments in ETFs to retail investors must act in their best interests. The SEC emphasizes that no crypto trading platforms or intermediaries were approved or endorsed in its January 10, 2024 decision. The approval of Spot ETF is therefore intended to prevent investments in unregulated financial products that are related to Bitcoin. In Germany, a spot ETF that only tracks the value of Bitcoin would not be permitted. In Germany, such funds must always invest in several securities.

      Wasn’t There Already a Bitcoin ETF?

      Bitcoin ETFs have already been marketed and approved in the past. However, these were not spot ETFs in the USA. No real Bitcoin was deposited. These were regularly so-called Bitcoin Future ETFs. Unlike ETFs, Bitcoin futures are traded on specialized trading venues based on dates and future prices. These futures are intended to allow investors to participate in price gains without holding Bitcoin. Unlike a spot ETF, however, the problem with futures is that they may react with a time lag. Institutional investors are also regularly not allowed to invest in such products without a physical deposit. The approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs in particular makes Bitcoin potentially accessible to a larger group of investors. Should a price structure emerge in which the fees for the acquisition of shares in a Bitcoin Spot ETF are more favorable than the procurement of Bitcoin directly via a crypto exchange, investors can also benefit from this accordingly.

      Bitcoin May Also Be Used as a Reference Value in Germany

      As explained above, it is currently not possible to launch a pure Bitcoin spot ETF in Germany. However, Bitcoin can be used as a reference value for other financial products. The term Bitcoin Exchange Traded Notes (ETN) refers to debt securities that are traded on the stock exchange and whose payout conditions are based on the performance of Bitcoin. The structuring options are numerous. For example, it is possible to bet on falling or rising prices or to integrate leverage into the product. In Germany, if these products are offered to retail investors, they are subject to the documentation requirements under the Prospectus Regulation or the WpPG or the Regulation on Key Information Documents for Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs). In this respect, there may be an obligation to publish a securities prospectus or a key information document. Financial contracts for difference (CFDs) can also use Bitcoin as a reference value. However, it is particularly important to ensure that CFDs entered into with retail investors meet the requirements of the BaFin general ruling of July 23, 2019. With the general ruling, BaFin restricted the marketing, sale and distribution of CFDs to retail investors in Germany.

      FIN LAW

      I.  https://fin-law.de

      E. info@fin-law.de

      subscribe to Newsletter

        Contact

        info@fin-law.de

        Jan 08, 2024

        Crypto Service Providers in the DeFi Space – Is Money Laundering Regulation a Dealbreaker for an Engagement in Decentralized Finance?

        Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has been a megatrend in the crypto sector for several years now. The idea is to create a financial market without intermediaries. Participants should be able to interact directly and immediately with decentralized smart contracts, for example to carry out swaps involving crypto assets without having to use the services of a crypto asset service provider. However, regulated market participants are also recognizing the potential of DeFi and are working on business models that provide for automated liquidity procurement via DeFi protocols and their smart contracts, for example. Nevertheless, regulated crypto service providers (CASP) are not completely free to organize their business activities. Rather, they have to observe numerous compliance regulations, which can make the creation of corresponding business models more difficult and sometimes even impossible. CASP face particular difficulties in this respect due to money laundering prevention regulations.

        Are DeFi Business Models Compatible with Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Regulation?

        For private individuals, the use of DeFi protocols is easier than for regulated crypto asset service providers in that they are not obliged by the anti-money laundering laws of the European Union and the German legislator. The situation is different for crypto asset service providers with a license under the German Banking Act (KWG), the German Investment Firms Act (WpIG) or, in the future, the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR). They have to fulfill identification, verification and information procurement obligations when carrying out crypto transactions. In this respect, crypto asset service providers regulated under the KWG and WpIG are also obliged entities within the meaning of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG) and the national Crypto Asset Transfer Regulation (KryptoWTransferV). In future, crypto asset service providers regulated under MiCAR will also be obliged entities under anti-money laundering law and consequently be subject to the revised EU Travel of Funds Regulation (TFR). All of the aforementioned legal standards assume that all parties involved in a crypto transaction are identifiable legal entities. If this is the case, the originator and recipient of crypto transactions as well as the crypto asset service providers entrusted with the execution can be identified and verified. They may also be requested to provide information such as names, addresses or details of the origin of the crypto assets. However, the fulfillment of these obligations for regulated crypto asset service providers is problematic in the case of smart contracts in DeFi protocols that are not backed by an identifiable legal entity. The question then arises as to whether the non-fulfilment of the obligations under money laundering law means that the crypto asset service provider concerned cannot interact with the DeFi protocol in principle, because the legal consequence of non-fulfilment is that the transaction may not be executed.

        Classification of Smart Contracts under Money Laundering Law Will Be Decisive

        It is true that the legal consequences provided for by the TFR and the German AML Act in the event of non-compliance with anti-money laundering prevention obligations can lead to the impossibility of carrying out crypto transactions with the smart contract in question. However, for the legal consequences to be triggered, the corresponding obligation must first also apply in the event of interaction with the DeFi protocol. There may be doubts about this if there is no identifiable legal entity underlying the smart contract in question. This is because the originators and beneficiaries required as transaction parties to trigger the obligation to provide or obtain information under the TFR are defined in the TFR to the effect that they must be persons. However, according to the general understanding, persons can only be natural or legal persons, or, if interpreted broadly, partnerships. A mere smart contract, on the other hand, can hardly be regarded as a person in the required sense. The concept of contractual partner, which is relevant in the context of the applicability of the obligations under the German AML Act, also causes difficulties in the case of mere smart contracts in DeFi. This is because a contracting party can only be someone who can be legally bound by a contract. However, without a legally capable operator, a smart contract will not have such legal capacity. It is impossible to predict whether these arguments will find their way into the administrative practice of BaFin and the relevant European supervisory authorities. What is clear, however, is that a specific and practicable legal regulation – preferably at the European level – should be created for the interaction of regulated CASP with DeFi protocols. Particularly in view of the dangers that can arise for consumers when using DeFi protocols independently, the legal facilitation of the involvement of regulated crypto asset service providers in DeFi protocols should also be desirable from a political perspective.

        Rechtsanwalt Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

        I.  https://fin-law.de

        E. info@fin-law.de

        The competent lawyer for questions regarding business models connected to Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and Anti-Money Laundering regulation in our law firm is Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London).

        subscribe to Newsletter

          Contact

          info@fin-law.de

          Dec 19, 2023

          Can Security Tokens or Crypto Securities Meet the European Green Bond Standard?

          On November 30, 2023, Regulation (EU) 2023/2631 on European Green Bonds and Optional Disclosures on Bonds Marketed as Environmentally Sustainable and Sustainability-linked Bonds (EU Green Bond Regulation) was published. The Regulation applies in its entirety from December 21, 2024. The EU Green Bond Regulation specifies the circumstances under which bond issuers may use the designation “European Green Bond” or “EuGB” for bonds offered in the Union. In order for a bond to qualify as a European Green Bond, the proceeds of the issue must, subject to certain flexibilities, be used in full for specific investment categories in accordance with the criteria for environmentally sustainable economic activities set out in the European Taxonomy Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852). In addition, as with other Green Bond standards, external auditors must be involved and documentary requirements must be met.

          The European Green Bond Standard Requires Prospectus Transparency and External Audit

          The EU Green Bond Regulation stipulates that only bonds for which the issuers have published a securities prospectus in accordance with the Prospectus Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1129) can qualify as a European Green Bond. In addition, the issuer must complete an information sheet provided for in the EU Green Bond Regulation prior to issuance and ensure that the completed information sheet is subject to a pre-issuance review and that an external auditor issues a favorable opinion on it. In order to ensure that the proceeds have been invested in accordance with the EU Green Bond Regulation, issuers must prepare an allocation report for each 12-month period until the date of full utilization of the proceeds of their bonds and indicate that the proceeds of the bonds have been used in accordance with the EU Green Bond Regulation since their issuance and until the end of the period specified in the report. If the allocation report has been prepared after the proceeds of the bond have been fully utilized, the report must be subject to a post-issuance audit by an external auditor. Issuers should also provide information on the environmental impact of their bonds by publishing an impact report at least once during the duration of the bonds after the proceeds have been fully utilized.

          Security tokens and Crypto Securities May Also Meet the Green Bond Standard

          The EU Green Bond Regulation does not regulate that blockchain-based security tokens or crypto securities under the Electronic Securities Act (eWpG) cannot fulfill the requirements of the European Green Bond Standard . Therefore, bonds for which a securities prospectus must be prepared can be issued both as security tokens and as crypto securities under the eWpG. The funds raised from such an issue can be used for the environmental objectives of the European Taxonomy Regulation. The information to be provided in the individual reports on the form of the bonds also does not suggest that blockchain-based bonds cannot be issued under the EU Green Bond Regulation. There are therefore valid reasons to believe that blockchain-based bonds can also be issued as European Green Bonds. It remains to be seen whether a market for European Green Bonds based on blockchain technology will develop.

          FIN LAW

          I.  https://fin-law.de

          E. info@fin-law.de

          subscribe to Newsletter

            Contact

            info@fin-law.de

            Dec 11, 2023

            Qualified Crypto Custody After MiCAR Go-live – What are Cryptographic Instruments?

            In October 2023, the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) published an initial draft bill for a new Financial Market Digitization Act (FinMaDiG). In addition to the introduction of national implementation provisions regarding the EU Regulation on Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCAR), which will to a large extent come into force in summer 2024, the core content includes a planned amendment to the German Banking Act (KWG). According to this, cryptographic instruments are to be introduced as a new category of regulated digital units, which are to be clearly distinguished from the crypto assets now regulated under MiCAR. At the same time, the national definition of crypto assets is to be removed from the KWG and the custody of cryptographic instruments is to be made subject to authorization. According to the draft legislation, the custody of cryptographic instruments is to constitute qualified crypto custody in future and as such constitute a regulated financial service. But what is the legislator aiming to achieve with the new introduction of cryptographic instruments and qualified crypto custody?

            German Crypto Asset Concept Cannot Simply Be Removed from the KWG

            In the explanatory memorandum to its proposal for the introduction of qualified crypto custody and cryptographic instruments, the BMF states that the new terminology is necessary in order to regulate a remaining area of application that is not covered by MiCAR but was regulated under the previous national crypto regulation. In particular, financial instruments within the meaning of MiFID2 regulation do not fall under the scope of MiCAR. The KWG, on the other hand, also covers tokenized MiFID2 products as regulated financial instruments and does not exclude the possibility that a crypto asset is also a financial instrument within the meaning of MiFID2 regulation according to the KWG. Crypto custodians licensed under the KWG in Germany may therefore currently also hold security tokens that constitute financial instruments within the meaning of MiFID2. However, the crypto custody license under MiCAR will no longer permit to do so. In order to prevent crypto custodians already licensed under the KWG from retroactively prohibiting previously permitted business in the course of the transition to MiCAR, the German legislator is now proposing to retain the current definition of crypto assets in the KWG, but to apply it to cryptographic instruments in the future. According to the draft bill, cryptographic instruments should therefore in the future be digital representations of value that have not been issued or guaranteed by any central bank or public authority and do not have the legal status of currency or money, but are accepted as a means of exchange or payment or serve investment purposes on the basis of an agreement or actual practice and which can be transferred, stored and traded electronically. According to the intended legal arrangement in the draft, e-money, crypto assets under MiCAR, crypto securities under the eWpG and crypto fund shares in particular are not to be considered cryptographic instruments.

            Cryptographic Instrument and Qualified Crypto Custody Should Be Terminologically Revised

            The legislator’s intention to continue to supervise crypto custodians with a BaFin license under the KWG to the same extent as before, even under MiCAR, is not objectionable in terms of content and is a logical consequence of the historically chosen approach of a licensing requirement for crypto-related business models in Germany. However, the terms “cryptographic instrument” and “qualified crypto custody” proposed in the draft bill are unnecessarily complicated and misleading. It is not clear why the term “crypto instrument” cannot be used instead of “cryptographic instrument”. After all, the current version of the KWG also refers to crypto assets instead of cryptographic assets. The term “qualified crypto custody” is even misleading. This is because the term suggests that the financial service is an extension of crypto custody in accordance with MiCAR. In fact, however, qualified crypto custody should refer exclusively to the custody of cryptographic instruments and therefore not to the custody of crypto assets. The new financial service would therefore represent an activity that is clearly distinct from crypto custody under MiCAR and would not have any overlaps with it. It would therefore be more appropriate to call it crypto-instrument custody, for example.

            Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

            I.  https://fin-law.de

            E. info@fin-law.de

            The competent lawyer for questions regarding tokenization and applying for a BaFin license under MiCAR and the KWG in our law firm is Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London).

            subscribe to Newsletter

              Contact

              info@fin-law.de

              Dec 04, 2023

              BaFin Publishes Guidance on Register Management for Crypto Securities

              On 23 November 2023, BaFin published a guidance sheet with information on the facts of crypto securities register management. The crypto securities register is closely related to the German Electronic Securities Act (eWpG). Under the eWpG, bearer bonds can be issued in the form of an electronic security. The same applies to crypto fund units in accordance with the Regulation on crypto fund units. An electronic security is issued by the issuer making an entry in an electronic securities register instead of issuing a securities certificate, e.g. in the form of a global certificate. The eWpG includes a central register and a crypto securities register among these electronic securities registers. The crypto securities register only applies to the latter. A crypto security is an electronic security that is entered in a crypto securities register. In addition to statements on the licensing requirement, the information sheet also contains general statements on the system of the eWpG.

              Existing DLT-Based Security Tokens are not Automatically Crypto Securities

              Traditional securities always require a certificate for a right, the utilization of which is governed by private law through the possession of the certificate. With the introduction of global certificates, it is no longer necessary to create a large number of securities certificates, but several rights can also be securitized in one certificate. In order for one of the rights securitized in the securities certificate to come into existence, an effective act of scripting and an effective contract of issuance are required. The effective scripting act requires the issuer to draft a certificate. In the case of a crypto security, the scripting of a certificate is waived. In BaFin’s opinion, the scrip is instead entered in the crypto securities register by entering the crypto security in the register. It is precisely this act of registration in a crypto securities register in accordance with the eWpG that is regularly missing for security tokens issued prior to the introduction of the eWpG. In this respect, BaFin therefore is of the opinion that these cannot qualify as crypto securities without further ado.

              Operation of Crypto Securities Register Regularly Subject to Authorization and Additional Licenses May Be Required

              The registry operator shall maintain a crypto securities register in such a way that the confidentiality, integrity and authenticity of the data are guaranteed. The entity operating the register must take the necessary technical and organizational measures to prevent data loss or unauthorized data modification for the entire duration for which the electronic security is registered. In order to comply with these obligations, BaFin assumes that it is always required that business operations are set up in a commercial manner. Accordingly, anyone operating an eWpG-compliant crypto securities register must always obtain a license from BaFin. Since crypto securities are ultimately securities, their safekeeping and/or management is also subject to the custody business requiring a license. However, according to the administrative practice now published by BaFin, a crypto securities registrar who is also licensed for custody business does not necessarily require a separate license for crypto custody business in order to secure any cryptographic keys. Nevertheless, crypto securities can also be held in custody by BaFin-approved crypto custodians in accordance with the eWpG.

              FIN LAW

              I.  https://fin-law.de

              E. info@fin-law.de

              subscribe to Newsletter

                Contact

                info@fin-law.de

                Nov 13, 2023

                From KWG to MiCAR – How Does the Legislator Intend to Shape the Regime Change for Crypto Asset Service Providers?

                On 23 October 2023, the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) sent a draft bill for a new Financial Market Digitization Act (FinmadiG) to associations and experts from the crypto industry with a request for critical feedback. In particular, the FinmadiG provides for the creation of a Crypto Markets Supervision Act (KMAG), in which the responsibility and powers of BaFin with regard to the granting of MiCAR licenses and the performance of the supervisory tasks provided for under MiCAR are to be regulated. In particular, the draft KMAG contains provisions on the necessary transition of crypto asset service providers already operating on the basis of national BaFin licenses to the new MiCAR supervisory regime. Corresponding regulations are needed in German law, as in Germany, unlike in other member states of the European Union, crypto assets have already been regulated as financial instruments within the meaning of the German Banking Act (KWG) and the German Investment Firm Act (WpIG) since 2020, with the consequence that business models based on corresponding instruments are subject to the prior procurement of a BaFin license. Those crypto asset service providers that have already received a BaFin license for their business operations on the basis of this national crypto regulation must now be transferred to the new supervisory regime under MiCAR.

                How Is the Transition to the MiCAR License to be Made According to the KMAG?

                The draft KMAG includes transitional provisions stipulating that companies that already hold a BaFin license under the KWG, the WpIG, the Payment Services Supervision Act (ZAG), as an exchange operating company or as a capital management company may also perform activities in relation to crypto assets within the meaning of the current national regulation under the new law if they are in possession of the BaFin license required for these activities under the then applicable legal framework on 29 December 2024. The date has been chosen in view of the  30 December 2024 deadline provided for in the MiCAR, from which it will take full legal effect. Crypto asset service providers operating on the basis of a German BaFin license are thus granted a transitional period, albeit a very short one. The draft bill for the KMAG stipulates that the transitional possibility of providing crypto services is to expire by 31 December 2025 at the latest. German crypto asset service providers therefore do not have much time to manage the transition from the current national license to the MiCAR license. Based on the fact that applications for a MiCAR license can only be submitted to BaFin once the MiCAR license requirements are also legally effective, crypto asset service providers would only have one year to successfully complete the transition process. It is likely that numerous German crypto asset service providers will be able to take advantage of the simplified procedure under MiCAR. However, if they wish to license additional crypto services that are not yet covered by their current license, the simplified procedure would not be available to them.

                Crypto Asset Service Providers Might be Subject to Both KWG and MiCAR According to the KMAG Draft

                It is interesting to note that, with regard to the necessary amendment to the KWG, the BMF’s draft legislation provides for the legal definition previously used for crypto assets to be retained almost word for word. However, tokens covered by the definition should no longer be considered crypto assets under the KWG in the future, but rather cryptographic instruments. In addition, crypto custody under national law is to be considered qualified crypto custody in the future and may only be provided in relation to cryptographic instruments. The reason for this is that the legislator must create a regulation to enable crypto custodians licensed under the KWG to continue to hold security tokens, i.e. financial instruments as defined by the MiFID2 regulation and crypto securities under the German Electronic Securities Act (eWPG), for example. This is because these instruments are excluded from the scope of MiCAR, meaning that they cannot be the subject of crypto custody on the basis of a MiCAR license. German crypto custodians will therefore require both a license for qualified crypto custody under the KWG and a crypto custody license under MiCAR in order to be able to conduct their business to the extent to which they are accustomed under current national regulation.

                Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                I.  https://fin-law.de

                E. info@fin-law.de

                The competent lawyer for questions regarding crypto asset services and BaFin license under MiCAR in our law firm is Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London).

                subscribe to Newsletter

                  Contact

                  info@fin-law.de

                  Nov 06, 2023

                  The MiCAR Whitepaper (Part VII) – How Does the German Legislator Intend to Implement the Draft Financial Market Digitization Act?

                  The Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) will gradually take effect in the member states of the European Union from June 30, 2024. Accordingly, national legislators must prepare for this and adapt their laws to the requirements of MiCAR. As MiCAR is a regulation that is directly applicable in all member states, the member states only have very limited scope for influence. Essentially, the national adjustments are likely to relate to the administrative procedure within the relevant member state. Accordingly, the recently published draft legislation on the Financial Market Digitization Act of the Federal Ministry of Finance primarily provides for provisions on the administrative procedure with regard to MiCAR whitepapers, as well as regulations on violations of the MiCAR provisions. While the first parts of the blog series analyzed the requirements for a whitepaper resulting directly from MiCAR, the following section examines how the national legislator plans to implement the MiCAR requirements with regard to MiCAR whitepapers with the draft legislation.

                  MiCAR Whitepaper to Be Regulated in the New Crypto Markets Supervision Act (KMAG)

                  The draft legislation for the Financial Market Digitization Act provides for the introduction of an act on the supervision of markets for crypto assets (Crypto Markets Supervision Act – KMAG). This legislation serves to implement MiCAR and also regulates the supervision of markets for crypto assets within the meaning of MiCAR. BaFin is designated as the competent supervisory authority for the provisions of MiCAR. The Crypto Markets Supervision Act expressly clarifies once again that the KMAG does not apply to financial instruments that are not covered by MiCAR. Companies that plan to offer asset-backed tokens to the public or wish to apply for their admission to trading must submit an application to BaFin in accordance with MiCAR. In addition, a MiCAR whitepaper must be prepared and published. In this context, the KMAG specifies that BaFin may require providers and applicants to amend their MiCAR whitepaper if it does not comply with the content or formal requirements of MiCAR. BaFin may also require providers and applicants to include additional information in their MiCAR whitepaper if this appears necessary for reasons of the stability of the financial market or for the protection of the public. The aforementioned also applies to e-money tokens and marketing communications.

                  Violation of MiCAR Whitepaper Regulations May Lead to Prohibition of Public Offering and Fines

                  The KMAG also provides for regulations in the event that a provider violates the crypto whitepaper provisions set out in MiCAR. BaFin can issue an order to suspend a public offer or admission to trading for up to 30 days if there is reasonable suspicion that MiCAR has been breached. It may also prohibit a public offer or admission to trading if the requirements set out in MiCAR are violated. This is particularly the case if asset referenced tokens are offered to the public without an approved MiCAR whitepaper. Should a MiCAR Whitepaper not be kept available or not be kept available for the prescribed duration or should supplements to a MiCAR Whitepaper not have been submitted or published, or not have been submitted or published correctly or in full, this also constitutes an administrative offense subject to a fine. The same applies in the event that the MiCAR whitepaper is not updated if a material new factor, material error or material inaccuracy has occurred or the MiCAR whitepaper is not published on the website or is not published for at least ten years.

                  FIN LAW

                  I.  https://fin-law.de

                  E. info@fin-law.de

                  subscribe to Newsletter

                    Contact

                    info@fin-law.de

                    Oct 30, 2023

                    Tokenization in the Gaming Industry – How to Tokenize an In-Game Currency?

                    Video games have long since become a mainstream alternative for leisure activities. Massive multiplayer online games (MMOs), in which players from all over the world can play together or against each other, are particularly popular. In many of these MMOs, so-called in-game currencies exist. These are digital payment units that can be purchased and used exclusively within the relevant game environment and can be used, for example, to purchase digital items within the respective computer game. Providers of such MMOs are increasingly considering the possibility of the tokenization of their in-game currencies. Tokenized in-game money could also be stored and transferred outside the relevant game environment in cryptowallets by the respective holders, entirely without contribution of the MMO operator. However, it must be clarified on a case-by-case basis, especially against the background of increasing crypto-regulation, whether the tokenization of an in-game currency is possible under regulatory law. Should the tokenized in-game tokens ultimately qualify as regulated instruments, the commercial handling of them may in individual cases require the prior obtaining of a BaFin license or the publication of documentation required by regulatory law.

                    Does the Issuance of In-Game Tokens Require a BaFin License?

                    Whether an MMO operator must obtain a BaFin license prior to issuing a tokenized in-game currency created through tokenization depends on the regulatory classification of both the tokenized in-game currency and the specific activities the MMO operator intends to offer in this context. A door opener for regulated activities and thus for the requirement of a BaFin license is regularly given if the crypto tokens in question are to be classified as financial instruments within the meaning of the German Banking Act (KWG) or the German Investment Firms Act (WpIG). In this respect, a classification as a unit of account or as a crypto asset can be considered in particular. However, according to its established administrative practice, BaFin only considers units of account to be instruments that are used as substitute or complementary currencies. In this respect, the classification of an in-game token as a unit of account always depends on whether it is at least also intended to be used as a means of payment. Should this characteristic be missing, the units of the tokenized computer game currency cannot be classified as a unit of account. To qualify as a crypto asset, an in-game token must either be used as a means of exchange or payment or serve investment purposes. However, the latter is not already the case if a player acquires in-game tokens in the expectation of an increase in value. Rather, it is necessary that the provider or third parties associated with it raise the possibility of suitability for investment purposes by means of advertising statements. With respect to regulated activities, it is necessary to examine which specific services the provider plans to provide with respect to the tokenized computer game currency. If, for example, a marketplace is to be operated on which in-game tokens can be purchased, a BaFin license may be required, depending on the design, e.g. for investment brokerage, proprietary trading, financial commission business or the operation of a multilateral trading system. Should the provider wish to offer a custody option for players via cryptowallets, he may operate the crypto custody business by doing so and therefore he may require a corresponding BaFin license.

                    What are the Obligations for Tokenizing a Computer Game Currency under MiCAR?

                    The question of the necessity of a BaFin license must also be examined from the perspective of the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR), which will be applicable as of summer 2024. The new MiCAR supervisory regime also results in an obligation for issuers of crypto assets to prepare and publish a crypto whitepaper in many constellations. This must contain the essential information that may be relevant for acquirers of the crypto assets to be offered within the meaning of MiCAR. In particular, this concerns information on the issuer itself as well as on the technical and legal design of the crypto asset in question. The crypto whitepaper must also comment on the risks associated with the acquisition. For the issuance of in-game tokens created through tokenization, the preparation and publication of a corresponding crypto whitepaper may also be required. An exception relevant in the case of in-game tokens applies to cases where the units of tokenized in-game currency qualify as utility tokens within the meaning of MiCAR, granting access to an already existing good or already offered service. For example, if the in-game token in question, in addition to the possibility of safekeeping and transfer inherent in all tokens, can be used solely to be transferred back to the MMO to be then used as an untokenized in-game currency for the acquisition of digital items in the game environment, the exception could apply in the individual case.

                    Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                    I.  https://fin-law.de

                    E. info@fin-law.de

                    The competent lawyer for questions regarding tokenization and applying for a BaFin license under MiCAR in our law firm is Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London).

                    subscribe to Newsletter

                      Contact

                      info@fin-law.de

                      Oct 23, 2023

                      The MiCAR Whitepaper (Part VI) – When Does an Investor Have a Right of Revocation Under MiCAR?

                      The Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) will gradually take legal effect in the European Union from June 30, 2024. According to the regulation, a crypto whitepaper must be prepared when crypto assets are offered to the public and when they apply for admission to trading on a trading platform. In the first parts of the series, we addressed the content requirements of a MiCAR whitepaper, the marketing of tokens, and the publication requirements of a MiCAR whitepaper. In this sixth part of the series, we will analyse under which circumstances an investor is entitled to a right of revocation when purchasing crypto assets other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens. According to the recitals of the regulation, a 14-day right of revocation should exist to protect retail investors in crypto assets.

                      Under Which Conditions Does the MiCAR Right of Revocation Apply?

                      Retail investors who purchase crypto assets other than asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens either directly from the issuer of the crypto asset or from a crypto service provider enjoy a right of revocation. To this extent, MiCAR defines a retail investor as any natural person acting for purposes that are outside his or her trade, business, craft or profession. Similar to the right of revocation for consumers, only non-commercial investors can invoke a potential MiCAR right of revocation. Furthermore, it is a prerequisite that the retail investor purchases crypto securities directly from an issuer or from a crypto asset service provider that places crypto assets on behalf of that issuer. Retail investors entitled to a MiCAR right of revocation have a period of 14 calendar days to revoke their consent to purchase the relevant crypto assets free of charge and without giving any reason. The revocation period starts from the date of the retail investor’s agreement to purchase. In cases where the crypto assets were already admitted to trading prior to their purchase by the retail investor, the MiCAR right of revocation does not apply. If the provider of the crypto assets has set a time limit for its offer, the right of revocation cannot be exercised after that period.

                      Offeror Must Provide Information About the Right of Revocation and the Legal Consequences in the MiCAR Whitepaper

                      Offerors of crypto assets other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens must provide information about the MiCAR revocation right in their MiCAR whitepaper. If the offeror fails to comply with this information requirement, the right of revocation is unlikely to be extended. However, in these cases, the MiCAR whitepaper is likely to be incomplete with the consequence that there is a risk of liability for the offeror. All payments received from a retail investor, including any fees, must be refunded within 14 days in the event of revocation. The period begins after the offeror has been notified of the Retail Investor’s decision to revoke the purchase of the crypto assets. For the refund, the provider must use the same means of payment that the retail investor used for the original purchase. This may be deviated from if this is expressly agreed with the retail investor and no fees or costs are incurred by the retail investor as a result of such alternative repayment.

                      FIN LAW

                      I.  https://fin-law.de

                      E. info@fin-law.de

                      subscribe to Newsletter

                        Contact

                        info@fin-law.de

                        Oct 09, 2023

                        BaFin License in NFT Business – Which Activities are Regulated in Times of MiCAR?

                        Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have been a controversial topic in the legislative process of the European Union on the way to the final version of the EU Regulation on Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCAR). In the regulation that was ultimately adopted, NFT were excluded from the scope of the regulation. Crypto assets that are unique and not fungible with other crypto assets shall not be subject to MiCAR. However, the legislator left a loophole open and formulated a re-exception for crypto assets to be classified as NFT in the recitals preceding the text of the regulation. According to the intention of the MiCAR legislator, an NFT that is part of a series should neither be considered unique nor non-fungible. The mere assignment of a unique identifier, such as a serial number, should not be sufficient to assume uniqueness in the required sense. Rather, it is required that the uniqueness results from the value represented via the NFT or the tokenized right. But is the commercial handling of NFT in such cases then indeed unregulated, so that crypto service providers, for example, do not need a BaFin license for crypto custody or crypto trading in relation to NFT under the scope of MiCAR?

                        MiCAR is Not the Only Relevant Regulatory Framework in the Commercial Handling of NFTs

                        An obligation to obtain a BaFin license may arise for providers of crypto custody, crypto trading or other crypto services not only from MiCAR. Under the current legal situation, the provisions of MiCAR regarding the provision of crypto services and the public offering of crypto assets on the market do not yet apply, so that the relevant obligations for providers with regard to the need for a BaFin license arise from national law. In Germany, crypto custody and crypto trading are therefore still subject to the provisions of the German Banking Act (KWG) and the German Investment Firm Act (WpIG). However, even under national law, business models relating to NFT are not necessarily subject to BaFin approval. This is only the case if the NFT can be classified as a regulated financial instrument in the specific case. In many cases, this classification fails in the case of NFT due to the KWG’s definition of crypto assets, which also applies to the WpIG. This is because according to this definition, a crypto asset must be used as a means of exchange or payment or serve investment purposes on the basis of an agreement or actual practice. BaFin considers the suitability of NFT as a means of exchange or payment to be fundamentally non-existent because of the individuality that constitutes them. It is true that, in the opinion of BaFin, NFTs can serve investment purposes under certain circumstances. However, according to its administrative practice, it is not sufficient in this respect that token holders acquire the Token in the hope that an increase in value will happen in the future. Rather, according to BaFin, an NFT may only qualify as a financial instrument in the form of a crypto asset if the creator or offeror makes promotional statements about the Token that focus on its suitability as an investment vehicle.

                        German Legislator is Working on MiCAR Implementation Law

                        The first provisions of MiCAR relevant to market participants will become legally effective on June 30, 2024. At that time, issuers of asset-referenced tokens (ART) and e-money tokens (EMT) will have to obtain a BaFin permission prior to offering their crypto assets to the public. The MiCAR regulations apply directly to market participants. Nevertheless, the German legislator will have to ensure that the new regulations do not conflict with existing regulations under national law. For this reason, a national implementation law is currently being drafted in Berlin. For the NFT subject, it can be assumed that existing differences between MiCAR and the national legal situation with regard to the question for which activities with NFT a BaFin license is required will be eliminated as far as possible. This would be possible either by adjusting the definition of crypto assets in the KWG or even by abolishing it. However, until a corresponding implementation law is passed, crypto service providers with NFT-related business models will have to keep both MiCAR and national law in mind when implementing their business model.

                        Attorney Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London)

                             I.  https://fin-law.de

                             E. info@fin-law.de

                        The lawyer responsible for questions relating to advice on the regulatory handling of NFT and on obtaining a BaFin license in our law firm is Dr. Lutz Auffenberg, LL.M. (London).

                        subscribe to Newsletter

                          Contact

                          info@fin-law.de

                          to top