Home / Posts / Update on Third Country Equivalence Under EMIR

Update on Third Country Equivalence Under EMIR


Update on Third Country Equivalence Under EMIR

The European Commission has adopted an “equivalence” decision on the derivatives regulatory regimes for derivatives clearing organisations in the United States. This follows the decisions adopted in November 2015 for Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and Switzerland and in October 2014 for Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. Further decisions are awaited for other jurisdictions and for other derivatives regulatory requirements. This paper summarises the equivalence decisions and technical advice that has been produced to date.

Please see full Memo below for more information.

 Download PDF

CLIENT PUBLICATION
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY | 17 March 2016
Update on Third Country Equivalence Under EMIR
The European Commission has adopted an “equivalence” decision on the derivatives
regulatory regimes for derivatives clearing organisations in the United States. This follows
the decisions adopted in November 2015 for Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, South
Africa and Switzerland and in October 2014 for Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore.
Further decisions are awaited for other jurisdictions and for other derivatives regulatory
requirements. This paper summarises the equivalence decisions and technical advice that
has been produced to date.
Introduction
1
Under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”), the European Commission may adopt
implementing acts declaring that the legal, supervisory and enforcement arrangements of a non-EU country are
2
equivalent to the requirements in EMIR. Such a decision is necessary for a central counterparty (“CCP”) or
trade repository (“TR”) established in a non-EU country to provide their services in the EU. EMIR also requires
equivalence decisions to be issued in respect of other obligations. These are relevant in circumstances where
one of the counterparties to a trade subject to EMIR is established outside the EU, as an equivalence decision
would permit both counterparties to comply with the non-EU country’s equivalent regime instead.
Under EMIR the European Commission may request the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”)
to provide technical advice as to the equivalence of some non-EU jurisdictions which host major derivatives
markets or CCPs which have applied for recognition. ESMA’s assessment is a factual comparison of the rules
in the relevant jurisdiction with the EU rules and advice to the Commission on how any differences might affect
an equivalence decision or could be incorporated into an equivalence decision. The scope of the advice covers
the recognition of non-EU CCPs and TRs, the clearing obligation, reporting obligation, non-financial
counterparties (“NFCs”), portfolio reconciliation, dispute resolution, portfolio compression and margin
requirements.
The Commission’s equivalence decision will be based on ESMA’s advice and an assessment of the outcomes
of the third country’s rules, including whether the rules mitigate any risks faced by market participants in the EU
to the same extent that the EMIR rules are intended to do so. The trading volumes in a jurisdiction can be
relevant to an assessment of the risks posed to clearing members of a third country CCP. Those CCPs with

1 Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories.
2 You may like to read our client note, “Extraterritoriality Revisited: Access to the European Markets by Financial Institutions, Funds and
Others from Outside Europe,” available here. The note sets out the requirements for non-EU entities to gain access to the EU markets under
various European legislative requirements.
2
larger trading volumes operating in larger financial markets will need to be subject to more rigorous risk
mitigation requirements than those operating in smaller financial markets.
3

US Equivalence
On 10 February 2016, the European Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”)
announced a common approach on the supervision of CCPs operating in the US and EU (the “Common
Approach”).
4
The agreement was necessary because key differences between the EU and US regimes had
been preventing the Commission from adopting an equivalence decision for the US. Notably, the crucial
discrepancy on minimum liquidation periods
5
has been resolved – the EU liquidation period for exchange-traded
futures contracts must be at least two business days whereas in the US it is one day and for customer
positions, EU rules provide that clearing members may post margin on a net basis whereas the US rules
require clearing members to post margin on a gross basis.
The European Commission has now adopted an equivalence decision.
6
The decision mirrors the stipulations
set out in the Common Approach. The equivalence decision declares that the legal and supervisory
arrangements of the CFTC for derivative clearing organisations (“DCOs”) that have been declared systemically
important derivatives clearing organisations (“SIDCOs”) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council or DCOs
that have opted into additional standards similar to the SIDCO regime (so-called “Subpart C DCOs”) are
equivalent to the EU requirements under EMIR, provided that the DCO’s internal rules and procedures meet the
following requirements:
 For derivatives contracts executed on regulated markets, a minimum liquidation period of two days for initial
margin is applied to clearing members’ proprietary positions;
 For all derivative contracts, measures are in place to limit procyclicality which are equivalent to the options
under EMIR;
7
and
 The DCO has sufficient pre-funded available resources enabling it to withstand the default of at least two
clearing members to which it has the largest exposures under extreme conditions.
The equivalence decision provides that these additional conditions will not apply to US agricultural commodity
derivatives traded and cleared domestically within the US, in light of the nexus of these contracts with the US

3 For example, the equivalence decision for South Africa notes that over the past three years, the total value of derivatives cleared in South
Africa was less than 1% of the total value of derivatives cleared in the EU.
4 You may like to see our client note, “EU-US Agreement on Regulation of Central Counterparties,” dated 16 February 2016, available here.
5 A liquidation period is the time period used for the calculation of the collateral that the CCP estimates is necessary to manage its exposure
to a defaulting member. Essentially, a CCP examines the maximum predicted possible price movement over the liquidation period to
calculate a baseline figure for initial margin.
6 The decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 March 2016 and is available here.
7 EMIR provides for the following options: a) applying a margin buffer at least equal to 25 % of the calculated margins which it allows to be
temporarily exhausted in periods where calculated margin requirements are rising significantly; (b) assigning at least 25 % weight to
stressed observations in the lookback period calculated under EMIR; (c) ensuring that its margin requirements are not lower than those that
would be calculated using volatility estimated over a 10 year historical lookback period.
3
economy, the importance of the contracts to US agricultural providers and the low degree of systemic
interconnectedness of agricultural products with the rest of the financial system.
The CFTC is responsible for oversight of derivative contracts other than those based on a single security (a
bond or share) or loan or narrow-based index of securities (which are subject to the oversight of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)). US CCPs that provide clearing services for those derivatives contracts
that fall within the remit of the SEC are not covered by the equivalence decision. If a US CCP provides clearing
services for derivatives under the purview of both the CFTC and the SEC, the decision relates only to those
services that fall within the CFTC’s jurisdiction.
Margin for Customer Positions
The equivalence decision also states that the US rules on margin for customer positions are equivalent to the
EU rules. The Commission has determined that although the details of the US rules differ with those of the EU
rules, the outcomes are equivalent. EU rules require margin for customer accounts to be collected on a net
basis whereas the US rules require it to be collected on a gross basis. According to the Commission, the
difference between the net and gross margin collection results in the same outcomes “which compensates for
the difference in the liquidation period.”
ESMA published proposals in December 2015 to amend the liquidation period for customer positions to allow
for one day gross margin to be posted provided that certain conditions were met, including that the identity of
the client is known to the CCP, the client is not an affiliate of a clearing member and the CCP implements
procedures to: (i) calculate for each account, initial and variation margin requirements at least every hour during
the day; and (ii) collect margins within one hour where the new margin requirement meets certain thresholds.
Considerable industry concern was expressed in response to ESMA’s proposals, including that the conditions
are not required under the US rules.
Recognition Under EMIR
SIDCOs and Subpart C DCOs may therefore apply to ESMA for recognition under EMIR but will need to show
that their internal rules and procedures meet the requirements set out above to obtain recognition. Following the
announcement of the EU-US agreement in February 2016, ESMA announced that it will do everything in its
powers to shorten the 180 day period that it has to make a recognition decision for CCPs under EMIR. The
impetus for this approach is the incoming clearing obligation for certain IRS entered into with an EU
counterparty. As a result, it seems likely that those DCOs that clear IRS may have their applications for
recognition prioritized over the applications of other DCOs. Although ESMA has committed to act speedily, the
DCOs may also need to implement changes to their rules and procedures to ensure that the additional
requirements for recognition are met.
US Comparability Determination
Consistent with the Common Approach, the CFTC adopted, on 16 March 2016, its own substituted compliance
determination for DCOs that are also EU CCPs. According to the determination, an EU CCP could comply with
the EU requirements on financial resources, risk management, settlement procedures and default procedures
instead of the CFTC requirements. Such substituted compliance will be available to EU CCPs that are currently
registered as DCOs as well as EU CCPs seeking to become registered as DCOs. The CFTC staff has also
clarified that certain CFTC requirements will not apply to non-Futures Commission Merchant clearing members
(and their customers) of EU CCPs that are DCOs.
4
Equivalence for Other Jurisdictions
Implementing Decisions for Mexico, South Korea, South Africa and Switzerland were published on 14
November 2015, declaring equivalence between the legal and supervisory regimes of those four countries and
EMIR for the regulation and supervision of CCPs. An Implementing Decision for Canada for the provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec was also published on 14 November 2015, declaring
equivalence between the legal and supervisory regimes of those five provinces and EMIR for the regulation and
supervision of CCPs. Implementing Decisions for Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore were published
in October 2014, declaring equivalence between the legal and supervisory framework of the four countries and
EMIR for the regulation and supervision of CCPs. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed
with each of the authorities in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and Singapore regarding
arrangements for cooperation related to ESMA’s monitoring of the ongoing compliance by CCPs established in
each country with the recognition conditions set out in Article 25 of EMIR. To date, 16 CCPs in Australia,
Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and Singapore have obtained recognition under EMIR.
8

In September and October 2013, ESMA published its technical advice to the European Commission on the
equivalence to the EU rules of the derivatives frameworks in several countries, including the US, Australia,
Hong Kong and Japan. In certain cases, where the frameworks were still being finalised, ESMA was unable to
advise fully on equivalence. Advice on the regimes for CCPs has also been provided for Hong Kong,
Singapore, Switzerland, India and South Korea and on the regimes for TRs for Singapore. Advice relating to
Dubai has been postponed.
EU Clearing Obligation
EMIR provides that ESMA may determine which derivatives should be subject to the mandatory clearing
obligation. European legislation has been implemented which will make it mandatory to clear certain OTC
interest rate swaps (“IRS”) through CCPs. This will represent the first mandatory clearing obligation under
EMIR. The obligation applies to fixed-to-float IRS (plain vanilla IRS derivatives), float-to-float swaps (basis
swaps), forward rate agreements and overnight index swaps denominated in euro, pounds sterling, Japanese
yen or US dollars and entered into with an EU counterparty. The obligation will be phased in according to
counterparty type to allow market participants time to determine if the obligation applies to them and set up
procedures to ensure compliance. From 21 June 2016, the obligation applies for clearing members for at least
one of the relevant classes of IRS of at least one CCP authorized or recognized to clear one of those classes.
9

ESMA consulted during 2015 on extending the clearing obligation for IRS to include fixed-to-float IRS
denominated in Czech koruna, Danish krone, Hungarian forint, Norwegian krone, Swedish krona and Polish
zloty to forward rate agreements denominated in Norwegian krone, Swedish krona and Polish zloty.
10
It has not
yet published any final draft technical standards to take those proposals forward.

8 The 16 CCPs are ASX Clear (Futures) Pty Ltd, ASX Clear Pty Ltd, HKFE Clearing Corporation Limited, Hong Kong Securities Clearing
Company Limited, OTC Clearing Hong Kong Limited, SEHK Options Clearing House Limited, Japan Securities Clearing Corporation, Tokyo
Financial Exchange Inc, Singapore Exchange Derivatives Clearing Limited, JSE Clear, ICE Clear Canada, Canadian Derivatives Clearing
Corporation, Asigna Compensacion y Liquidacion, The Central Depository (Pte) Limited and ICE Clear Singapore.
9 You may like to view our client note, “EU Clearing Obligation for Interest Rate Swaps Loans” dated 24 August 2015, available here.
10 The consultation paper is available here.
5
On 1 March 2016, the European Commission announced that it had adopted a Delegated Regulation on the
clearing obligation for credit derivatives. The Delegated Regulation, which does not substantively change the
final ESMA regulatory technical standards, provides for untranched iTraxx Index CDS (Main, EUR,5Y) and
untranched iTraxx Index CDS (Crossover, EUR,5Y) derivatives to be subject to the clearing obligation. The
exact dates for when the clearing obligation will come into effect will be determined by the date of publication of
the Delegated Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The transitional exemption period for pension funds to comply with the EU clearing obligation was extended
from 16 August 2015 to 16 August 2017 in September 2015. ESMA has published a list of pension scheme
arrangements exempt from the clearing obligation which so far comprises the 16 arrangements granted
exemption by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority.
Capital Requirements for Exposures to CCPs
The recognition of a third country CCP is also important for the clearing members of the CCPs. Recognition
under EMIR will give the CCP the status of being a qualifying CCP (“QCCP”) which is relevant for clearing
member firms to calculate their capital requirements for exposures to CCPs under the EU Capital Requirements
Regulation (“CRR”). Lower capital requirements are imposed for exposures to a QCCP than for exposures to a
non-QCCP CCP. Under the CRR transitional measures, the enhanced capital requirements would have applied
for exposures to non-QCCPs from 15 June 2014, albeit that the European Commission has used its powers to
extend that deadline three times and may do so again. Although the Commission has adopted an equivalence
decision for CCPs established in the US, those CCPs still need to obtain recognition before the revised 15 June
2016 deadline for the lower capital requirements to apply to exposures to those CCPs.
6
The matrix below provides a status update and summarises the key outcomes of ESMA’s technical advice for
the jurisdictions on which ESMA has published advice.
NOTE:
 For Canada, ESMA concluded, on 1 October 2013, that it was not in a position to perform a conclusive
analysis as Canada was still in the process of finalising its regulatory regime. ESMA has not published advice
to date. An equivalence decision has been adopted for the supervision of CCPs.
 For Switzerland, ESMA has provided advice for CCPs only. ESMA concluded, on 1 October 2013, that it was
not in a position to perform a conclusive analysis as Switzerland was still in the process of finalizing its
regulatory regime other than for CCPs.
 For Singapore and Hong Kong, ESMA’s advice was only requested for TRs and CCPs.
 For South Korea and India, ESMA’s advice was only requested for CCPs.
 For South Africa and Mexico, ESMA has not published advice.
KEY:

Clearing obligation, risk mitigation, NFCs, margin for OTC, derivatives, effective supervision, dispute
resolution

Trade repository requirements

CCP requirements

CLIENT PUBLICATION

US JAPAN AUSTRALIA
Clearing obligation No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent, provided that:
(i) the product subject to the clearing obligation in the
EU is also subject to the clearing obligation in the US;
and
(ii) the entity in the US is a non-exempted entity, or, if
exempted, it would benefit from an equivalent
exemption in the EU.
Intragroup transactions:
In view of the establishment of an equivalent regime for
the clearing obligation and for risk mitigation techniques
(see below requirements which are part of the EMIR
risk mitigation rules), ESMA advises that transactions
between EU and US entities in the same group should
benefit from the intragroup exemption.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent, provided that:
(i) the product subject to the clearing obligation in the
EU is also subject to the clearing obligation in Japan;
and
(ii) the entity in Japan is a non-exempted entity, or, if
exempted, it would benefit from an equivalent
exemption in the EU.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent, provided that:
(i) the product subject to the clearing obligation in the
EU is also subject to the clearing obligation in Australia;
and
(ii) the entity in Australia is a non-exempted entity, or if
exempted, it would benefit from an equivalent
exemption if established in the EU.
Timely confirmation No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent, provided that:
(i) the relevant transaction is executed between a EU
counterparty and a Swap Dealer (“SD”) or Major Swap
Participant (“MSP”) subject to Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (“CFTC”) jurisdiction; and
(ii) reporting of unconfirmed trades to EU national
regulators is not disapplied.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent. There are no legally
binding requirements for timely confirmation.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent. There are no legally
binding requirements for timely confirmation. However,
entities regulated by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (“ASIC”) (e.g. financial
services providers) are subject to risk management
requirements and have an obligation to conduct
financial services honestly, efficiently and fairly.
Institutions regulated by the Australian Prudential
Regulation Authority (“APRA”) are also subject to
regulatory guidance. There are also industry
conventions about timely confirmation.
Portfolio reconciliation No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent, provided that:
(i) where the transaction is between a financial
counterparty or a NFC that is above the EMIR clearing
threshold (“NFC+”) and a SD or MSP, the SD or MSP
apply the provisions applicable to transactions between
SDs and MSPs; and
(ii) where the transaction is between a NFC that is
below the EMIR clearing threshold (“NFC-”) and a SD
or MSP, the SD or MSP apply the provisions applicable
to transactions to counterparties other than a SD or
MSP.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent. There are no legally
binding requirements for portfolio reconciliation.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent. There are no legally
binding requirements for portfolio reconciliation.
However, entities regulated by ASIC and/or APRA are
subject to risk management requirements, and entities
regulated by ASIC have the obligation to conduct
financial services honestly, efficiently and fairly.
Breaches are enforceable by ASIC and/or APRA,
depending on which requirement may not have been
complied with, but this is considered insufficient.
8
US JAPAN AUSTRALIA
Portfolio compression No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent where the entity subject to
the EMIR provisions on portfolio compression in the EU
enters into transactions with a SD or MSP subject to the
CFTC regime.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent. There are no legally
binding requirements for portfolio compression.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent. There are no legally
binding requirements for portfolio compression.
Dispute resolution No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent.

No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent.
Effective supervisory and
enforcement arrangements
with respect to OTC
derivatives
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: broadly equivalent.

No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent.
Bilateral margin and capital
for OTC derivatives
ESMA advises the Commission to suspend a decision on equivalence pending finalisation of the rules in both the EU and each jurisdiction. The Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions announced on 18 March 2015 that the implementation date for their framework would be postponed
until 1 September 2016.
NFCs ESMA has advised the Commission not to take a specific determination on equivalence for NFCs but to analyse the clearing obligation and risk mitigation requirements (in the
above rows) also with respect to NFCs.

JAPAN AUSTRALIA HONG KONG
Trade repository
requirements
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice postponed (no Japanese TRs have yet
indicated that they intend to apply for recognition under
EMIR).
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice:
Reporting obligation:
Broadly equivalent.
Guarantee of professional secrecy:
Equivalent.
Effective ongoing supervision and enforcement:
Equivalent.
No equivalence decision yet.
Hong Kong is still in the process of finalising its
regulatory regime for reporting to TRs. Therefore,
ESMA concluded on 1 October 2013 that it was not in a
position to perform a conclusive analysis and deliver
technical advice on this topic and will wait for a new
mandate from the Commission before providing advice.
It should be noted that the absence of an assessment
on TRs does not prevent the access of Hong Kong
CCPs to EU-based TRs authorized by ESMA. Neither
does it prevent a Hong Kong branch of a EU entity
reporting to a Hong Kong TR if so required by any
applicable law other than EMIR.
9
US SINGAPORE SWITZERLAND
Trade repository
requirements
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice:

Authorisation requirements:
Equivalent, provided TRs adopt legally binding internal
policies, procedures, rules, models and methodologies
which comply with EMIR requirements relating to
operational separation and collection of data on
exposures (valuation and collateral).
Reporting obligation:
Not equivalent. The reporting obligation of EMIR cannot
be substituted with the reporting obligation of the US
regime, which omits the requirement to report specific
data on valuation of exposures and collateralisation of
such exposures.
However, where TRs adopt legally binding internal
policies, procedures, rules, models and methodologies
that ensure the collection of data on exposures
(valuation and collateral), these should be taken into
account under the recognition assessment.
Reporting codes:
Broadly equivalent. Similar codes are expected to be
used by EU and US TRs, also to ensure compliance
with the general reconciliation and data aggregation
obligations.
Guarantee of professional secrecy:
Equivalent.
Effective ongoing supervision and enforcement:
Equivalent. Although the US regime does not provide
specifically for TRs, the US supervisory regime
applicable to all regulated firms applies and is
equivalent.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice:

Authorisation requirements:
Equivalent, provided TRs adopt internal policies,
procedures and rules that constitute legally binding
requirements ensuring the following:
(a) operational separation of ancillary services;
(b) business continuity, in particular the existence of a
second backup site;
(c) position calculation by TRs;
(d) no duplication of reports: requires TR users to match
data and the TR to validate reports upon receipt;
(e) deadline to report: TR to be ready to receive reports
one day after the execution of the contracts, at the
latest; and
(f) disclosure to the public and relevant authorities in a
similar manner as prescribed under EMIR and relevant
technical standards.
Effective ongoing supervision and enforcement:
Equivalent.
No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice postponed.

10
CANADA11 MEXICO SOUTH KOREA SOUTH AFRICA SWITZERLAND
CCPs subject to ongoing
supervision and enforcement
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2040.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2041.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2038.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2039.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2042.
Effective system for
recognition of CCPs
authorised under the legal
regime of a third country
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2040.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2041.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2038.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2039.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2042.
CCP authorisation
requirements
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2040.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2041.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2038.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2039.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision
2015/2042.

JAPAN AUSTRALIA HONG KONG SINGAPORE
CCPs subject to ongoing
supervision and enforcement
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/752/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/755/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/754/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/753/EU.
Effective system for
recognition of CCPs
authorised under the legal
regime of a third country
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/752/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/755/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/754/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/753/EU.
CCP authorisation
requirements
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/752/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/755/EU.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/754/EU.
Note that this is limited to entities
authorised under the Securities and
Futures Ordinance only.
Equivalent under Commission
Implementing Decision 2014/753/EU.

11 The Implementing Decision for Canada is limited to the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
11
US INDIA
CCPs subject to ongoing
supervision and enforcement
Equivalent under Commission Implementing Decision 2016/377 for SIDCOs or opt-in
SIDCOs subject to the CFTC’s supervision and oversight.

No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent.
Effective system for
recognition of CCPs
authorised under the legal
regime of a third country
Equivalent under Commission Implementing Decision 2016/377 for SIDCOs or opt-in
SIDCOs subject to the CFTC’s supervision and oversight.

No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: not equivalent.
CCP authorisation
requirements
Equivalent under Commission Implementing Decision 2016/377 for SIDCOs or opt-in
SIDCOs subject to the CFTC’s supervision and oversight, provided that the CCP’s
internal rules and procedures meet certain requirements.

No equivalence decision yet.
ESMA’s advice: equivalent, provided the CCP adopts legally binding internal policies,
procedures, rules, models and methodologies which comply with certain
requirements for CCPs under EMIR – ESMA identifies the following specific areas of
requirements:
(a) Organisational, including governance, compliance, audit etc.
(b) Requirements for senior management and Securities and Exchange SEBI of
India;
(c) Risk Committee requirements for CCPs under Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”)
supervision;
(d) Record keeping;
(e) Requirements for shareholders and members with qualifying holdings for CCPs
under RBI supervision;
(f) Requirements for the assessment of qualifying holdings for CCPs under RBI
supervision;
(g) Conflict of interest requirements for CCPs under RBI;
(h) Business continuity;
(i) Outsourcing;
(j) General conduct of business requirements for CCPs under RBI supervision;
(k) Participation;
(l) Transparency;
(m) Segregation and portability;
(n) Exposure management requirements for CCPs under RBI supervision;
(o) Margin;
(p) Default fund;
(q) Other financial resources;
(r) Liquidity risk control;
(s) Default waterfall;
(t) Collateral;
12
US INDIA
(u) Investment policy;
(v) Default procedure;
(w) Review of models, stress testing and back testing; and
(x) Settlement.
The CCP must ensure that no changes are made to its internal policies, procedures,
rules or methodologies which would mean that it would no longer comply with the
standards required by EMIR.

CLIENT PUBLICATION

CONTACTS
Barnabas W.B. Reynolds
London
+44.20.7655.5528
barney.reynolds@shearman.com
Patrick Clancy
London
+44.20.7655.5878
patrick.clancy@shearman.com
Thomas Donegan
London
+44.20.7655.5566
thomas.donegan@shearman.com
Geoffrey B. Goldman
New York
+1.212.848.4867
geoffrey.goldman@shearman.com
James Duncan
London
+44.20.7655.5757
james.duncan@shearman.com
Ian Harvey-Samuel
London
+44.20.7655.5000
ian.harvey-
samuel@shearman.com
Donna M. Parisi
New York
+1.212.848.73670
dparisi@shearman.com
Azam H. Aziz
New York
+1.212.848.8154
aaziz@shearman.com
Kolja Stehl
London / Frankfurt
+44.20.7655.5864
+49.69.9711.1623
kolja.stehl@shearman.com
Ellerina Teo
London
+44.20.7655.5070
ellerina.teo@shearman.com
Sandy Collins
London
+44.20.7655.5601
sandy.collins@shearman.com

ABU DHABI | BEIJING | BRUSSELS | DUBAI | FRANKFURT | HONG KONG | LONDON | MENLO PARK | MILAN | NEW YORK
PARIS | ROME | SAN FRANCISCO | SÃO PAULO | SAUDI ARABIA* | SHANGHAI | SINGAPORE | TOKYO | TORONTO | WASHINGTON, DC

This memorandum is intended only as a general discussion of these issues. It should not be regarded as legal advice. We would be pleased to provide additional details or advice about specific
situations if desired.
9 APPOLD STREET | LONDON | EC2A 2AP | UNITED KINGDOM
Copyright © 2016 Shearman & Sterling LLP. Shearman & Sterling LLP is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with an affiliated limited liability
partnership organized for the practice of law in the United Kingdom and Italy and an affiliated partnership organized for the practice of law in Hong Kong.
*Dr. Sultan Almasoud & Partners in association with Shearman & Sterling LLP

Download PDF[352KB] Email
Report

Note close

Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.

We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.

Please choose one of the above to proceed!

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

About Jimmy

Check Also

EARL e-News: The Uncertain Status of “Stigma Damages” for Property Claims in Sc – Updates on Ecological, Administrative and Regulatory Law

EARL e-News: The Uncertain Status of “Stigma Damages” for Property Claims in Sc – Updates …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *