Footnotes:
1 As set forth under Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJL 345, 31 December 2003, 64), as amended by Directive 2010/73/EU (the Amending Directive), and its implementing Regulation (EC) 809/2004 (Prospectus Directive).
2 The revision of the Prospectus Directive is an important step in the construction of the Capital Markets Union. The harmonized EU prospectus is the ‘gateway’ for issuers in need of external finance to gain access to European capital markets. A reform of the prospectus rules was announced in the Investment Plan for Europe as part of the third pillar for improving the business environment, was featured in the Commission Work Programme for 2015—as part of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT)—and represents a key element of the Capital Markets Union (CMU). The CMU Action Plan presents a comprehensive and ambitious programme of measures to strengthen the role of market-based finance in the European economy. A key objective of the CMU is, notably, to facilitate raising funds on capital markets. Capital markets offer access to a wide set of funding providers and provide a cyclical exit opportunity for private equity and business angels, which invest in companies at an earlier stage of their development (see Commission, ‘Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union’, Communication COM(2015) 468/2; Commission, ‘Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan’, Communication COM(2017) 292 final; Commission, ‘Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication on the Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan’, SWD(2017) 225 final). About the CMU plan, see D. Busch, E. Avgouleas, and G. Ferrarini (eds), Capital Markets Union in Europe, (Oxford: OUP, 2018).
3 See European Commission, ‘Review of the Prospective Directive—Consultation Document’, 18 February 2015 (European Commission, Review of the Prospectus Directive); European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading’, COM(2015) 583 final (European Commission, Final Proposal for a Regulation on the Prospectus); N. Moloney, How to Protect Investors: Lessons from the EC and the UK (Cambridge: CUP, 2010), 291–6; W. Schaeken Willemaers, The EU Issuer-Disclosure Regime. Objectives and Proposals for Reform (Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolter Kluwer, 2011); J. Armour et al., Principles of Financial Regulation, (Oxford: OUP, 2016), 162–3; B. de Jong and T. Arons, ‘Modernizing the Prospectus Directive’, in: Busch, Avgouleas, and Ferrarini (n. 2).
4 About the NPR, see de Jong and Arons (n. 3); G. Morse, Palmer’s Company Law (London, 2019), vol. 4, chapter 16.1.
5 Surprisingly, Article 6 does not refer to the main three areas of information traditionally included in the prospectus (i.e. issuer, securities, offer/listing), avoiding explicitly mentioning the relevant offer and/or listing, as well as related risks. It is clear from the NPR, however, that the prospectus must disclose such details, as always, as the prospectus per se must be published only when the issuer or offeror is contemplating such a listing/offer and investors need to know their terms and risks in order to decide whether to subscribe to them.
6 See P. Schammo, EU Prospectus Law: New Perspectives on Regulatory Competition in Securities (Cambridge: CUP, 2011), 108.
7 There were basically three systems in operation, all grounded in the Listing Particulars Directive, but two of them are not strictly forms of incorporation by reference: (i) Under Art. 6(1) of the Listing Particulars Directive, the supervisory authorities in Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and the UK allow a company issuing securities in certain circumstances to circulate a document published within the previous twelve months and approved by that authority in lieu of a new document, providing a note is attached to the earlier document describing the characteristics of the issue and containing any updates as necessary (any material changes, accounts for the latest financial year, interim financial statements). (ii) In Belgium, France, and Spain, this article forms the basis for a ‘shelf registration’ system whereby a ‘shelf document’ containing general information on the company and financial statements is submitted to and approved by the supervisory authority on an annual basis. When an issue is made, an ‘issue document’ is published which contains the characteristics of the offering and any applicable updating of the shelf document and which must be approved by the supervisory authority. (iii) Finally, two countries permit a true incorporation by reference, notably Luxembourg (for Eurobonds only, under Art. 10 of the Listing Particulars Directive) and the Netherlands. See IOSCO, ‘International Disclosure Standards for Cross-Border Offerings and Initial Listings by Foreign Issuers’, 1998, https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD81.pdf.
8 In Australia, the Corporations Law enables documents to be incorporated by reference in a prospectus if they are required to be lodged with the Australia Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the prospectus includes a ‘summary’ of the document. The requirements are set forth in s1024F(1) of the Corporations Law. For the purposes of s1024F, the ASIC accepts as a ‘summary’ of a document a description which is accurate and sufficient to indicate whether a person needs to obtain a copy of the document, or part of it, being incorporated by reference. Further, the ASIC is prepared to allow incorporation into a prospectus of a document lodged at the same time as the prospectus. The document must exist when the prospectus is signed, must be lodged no later than the prospectus, and must have been lodged as required or allowed by another provision of the Corporations Law. In Japan, a company is able to incorporate by reference under the Securities and Exchange Law Section 5–3, and the Ministerial Ordinance regarding the Disclosure of the Company, Section 9–3. Ontario has a prompt offering qualification system (the ‘POP system’) for the distribution of securities of eligible issuers, which was designed to shorten the time period and to streamline the procedures by which these issuers and their selling security holders could obtain access to the Canadian capital markets through a prospectus offering. The POP system permits the incorporation of certain information by reference. The requirements are set forth in National Policy No. 47—Prompt Offering Qualification System, and National Policy No. 44—Rules for Shelf Prospectus Offerings and for Pricing Offerings After the Final Prospectus is Receipted. In Switzerland, incorporation by reference is possible if equity securities of the issuer are already listed and the new equity securities are offered to holders of equity securities on the basis of ordinary or preferential subscription rights either with or without payment, or have been made available for the servicing of convertible debt securities or warrants. In such cases, all information which is specially marked in Annex I of the Listing Rules may be omitted from the listing particulars, provided such information was included in the last annual report or the last interim report and there have been no material changes since. In the latter case, the documents in question to which reference is made in the listing particulars are an integral part of the listing particulars and must be provided with them. Furthermore, incorporation by reference is also permitted with respect to earlier listing particulars, provided such earlier listing particulars are, as of the date of the publication, not older than three months. However, in all cases of incorporation by reference, the principle of up-to-date information remains valid. For the hereby presented comparative analysis, see again IOSCO (n. 7), 5 ff.
9 Securities Act of 1933, CFR 17, para. 230.
10 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, CFR 17, para. 240.
11 In order to partially protect issuers from aggravated liability in case of incorporation by reference, the SEC has started considering certain information not ‘filed’ (but ‘furnished’) for certain purposes (including incorporation by reference in a registration statement): D. B. H. Martin and G. Robinson, ‘Securities Disclosure. To Be or Not to Be Filed?’, Insight (2003) 17(9).
12 The registration statements that permit incorporation by reference are Forms S-1 (un-seasoned issuers) and S-3 (seasoned issuers). See J. C. Coffee Jr, J. Seligman, and H. A. Sale, Securities Regulation. Cases and Materials, 10th edn (New York, 2007), 136ff, 141.
14 This is further corroborated by Recital (29), Prospectus Directive, which states that the opportunity of allowing issuers to incorporate by reference documents containing the information to be disclosed in a prospectus—provided that the documents incorporated by reference have been previously filed with or accepted by the competent authority—should facilitate the procedure of drawing up a prospectus and lower the costs for the issuers without endangering investor protection.
15 The Commission enacted its mandate providing the following principles for documents containing information incorporated by reference: (a) the documents may be more than one; (b) the documents must have been previously or simultaneously published; (c) the documents must have been approved by the competent authority of the home Member State or filed with it; (d) the abovementioned approval or filing must have been in accordance with the Prospectus Directive, in particular pursuant to Article 10, or with Titles IV and V of Directive 2001/34/EC (‘CARD’); and (e) the information shall be the latest available to the issuer. To assist the development of the implementing measures which the Commission was mandated to adopt on incorporation by reference, in 2002 it requested CESR to provide technical advice on possible draft rules concerning the documents that could be incorporated by reference in a prospectus. The request for advice specifically referred to memoranda of association, annual and interim accounts, and press releases as examples of the type of documents from which information could be incorporated by reference. In the advice (which was ultimately taken on board by the Commission), CESR suggested that, assuming that certain recommendations in its advice were taken on board and the requirements set by the Prospectus Directive were met, information contained in the documents listed below could be incorporated by reference in a prospectus: (a) annual and interim financial information; (b) documents prepared on occasion of a specific transaction such as a merger or de-merger; (c) audit report and financial statements; (d) memorandum and articles of association; (e) earlier approved and published prospectuses; (f) regulated information; and (g) circulars to security holders. The abovementioned non-exhaustive list of documents corresponds to the list contained in Article 28(1) of the Regulation 809/2014: ESMA, ‘Consultation Paper—Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on prospectus related issues under the Omnibus II Directive’, 25 September 2014, ESMA/2014/1186, 7 ff., https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2015/11/2014-1186_consultation_paper_on_omnibus_ii_rts.pdf (ESMA Consultation Paper—Omnibus II) Schammo (n. 6), 106ff.
16 The original Article 10, Prospectus Directive also required issuers admitted to trading on regulated markets to provide a document containing all regulated information made available to the public in the previous twelve months. Such article was deleted in the 2010 revision, since the requirement appeared redundant in the light of the approval of the Transparency Directive: N. Moloney, EU Securities and Financial Markets Regulation, (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 108. The Amending Directive also changed the Commission’s mandate, conferring on the Commission the obligation to adopt measures concerning the information to be incorporated by reference by means of delegated acts. The new mandate did not set a deadline for such delegated acts and the Commission did not utilize the mandate. Article 1(2), Omnibus II changed the mandate in Article 11(3), Prospectus Directive once again by providing the empowerment to ESMA to deliver draft RTS to the Commission: ESMA (Consultation Paper—Omnibus II); Moloney, EU Securities (above); D. Fischer-Appelt, ‘Amendments to the EU Prospectus Directive Regime’, Business Law International (2014) 15(2), 95.
18 I. Ramsay, ‘Incorporation by Reference into Prospectuses: What Are the Rationales?’, Company and Securities Law Journal (1994) 12(5).
19 Regulation (EU) 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (OJ L352, 9 December 2014, 1) (PRIIPs).
23 In the US, the liability for misstatements or omissions under section 11, Securities Act is strict, while the liability regime under section 10(b), Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is grounded on due diligence and with more difficult burden of proof (also compared with the due diligence liability under section 12(a)(2), Securities Act). The incorporation by reference, therefore, allows investors to benefit from a more favourable regime: see T. Rodriguez and E. Tyson Marshall, ‘Incorporating Caution into Incorporating by Reference’, Securities Litigation Journal (2009), 22; Martin and Robinson (n. 11).
24 The withdrawal right is also triggered by a negative event occurring after the publication—therefore unknown when investors made their investment decision—so that investors are given the opportunity to re-assess the proposed investment and, apparently, even when such information is not ‘significant’ (that for debt securities means circumstances where the issuer’s ability to repay or its creditworthiness might be impacted by the new factor): ICMA (n. 20). However, CESR’s specifications and the 2010 review introduced time limits to exercise the right and clarifications that the negative event triggering the supplement had to be significant and take place before the closing date and delivery of securities: ESMA, ‘Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on specific situations that require the publication of a supplement to the prospectus’, 15 March 2013, ESMA/2013/1537 (ESMA Technical Standards) (containing a list of possible triggering events); ESMA, ‘Final Report’, 17 December 2013, ESMA/2013/1970 (ESMA Final Report); Moloney, EU Securities (n. 16), 104; Fischer-Appelt (n. 16), 106–7; Schammo (n. 6), 104–5; G. Walker and R. Purves, Financial Services Law, 3rd edn (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 378–9. See also the new Article 23(2)–(5), NPR, containing several conditions and specifications.
25 Regulatory and Supervisory authorities: the vast majority of authorities are in favour of making the incorporation by reference mechanism more flexible, as this would reduce the costs of prospectuses without lowering the investor protection. However, a small group of respondents does not feel comfortable with granting the incorporation of documents filed voluntarily with the authorities as they would prefer the reference only to documents that have been previously or simultaneously approved and filed. Crowdfunding organizations: this issue is hardly addressed by crowdfunding organizations. Non-governmental organizations: few associations express a view on this specific topic, but they generally support an extension of the incorporation by reference, specifying that the incorporated documents should be accessible at the same location of the prospectus and subject to a storage period aligned with the limitation period for the liability claims. Stock exchanges: a slight majority of respondents favours the extension of the incorporation by reference mechanism, particularly concerning the information published under the Transparency Directive and MAR, while further incorporation by reference is considered cautiously. To this end, ESMA should develop appropriate RTS. Investors’ associations: only a handful of associations replied to this question, and they generally expressed support. However, one respondent is reluctant to allow information disclosed under the Transparency Directive to be eligible for incorporation by reference in a prospectus. Consultancies and law firms: a significant majority of stakeholders supports making incorporation by reference more flexible, drawing up an exhaustive list based on existing EU legislation or on a principle-based approach. The basic thesis is that as information is already available to the market, there is no need to duplicate it. Companies, SMEs, micro-enterprises, sole traders: the majority of respondents supports the enhancement of the incorporation by reference mechanism (only two prefer the status quo), in particular via the streamlining of the disclosure provided under the Prospectus Directive, the Transparency Directive, and MAR. Financial industry: a vast majority of stakeholders supports a more flexible use of the incorporation by reference, drawing up an exhaustive list of disclosure items based on the existing EU legislation. All information published under the legislation on MAR and the Transparency Directive should be allowed to be implicitly incorporated (only one stakeholder disagreed on this point). See European Commission, ‘Consultation on the Review of the Prospectus Directive—Feedback Statement on the Public Online Consultation’, 2015, 16 ff., http://ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2015/prospectus-directive/docs/summary-of-responses_en.pdf (European Commission, Feedback Statement).
26 Information may be incorporated by reference in a prospectus where it has been previously or simultaneously published electronically, drawn up in a language fulfilling the requirements of Article 27, and where it is contained in one of the following documents: (i) documents which have been approved by a competent authority, or filed with it, in accordance with this Regulation or Directive 2003/71/EC; (ii) documents referred to in points (f)–(i) of Article 1(4) and points (e)–(h) and point (j)(v) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(5);(iii) regulated information; (iv) annual and interim financial information; (v) audit reports and financial statements;(vi) management reports as referred to in Chapter 5 of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (22); (vii) corporate governance statements as referred to in Article 20, Directive 2013/34/EU; (viii) reports on the determination of the value of an asset or a company; (ix) remuneration reports as referred to in Article 9b, Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (23); (x) annual reports or any disclosure of information required under Articles 22 and 23, Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (24); (xi) memorandum and articles of association.
28 This is the case for the prospectus (Art. 13(1), Prospectus Directive), the final offer price and amount of securities (Art. 8(1), second subpara., Prospective Directive), and final terms (Art. 5(4), Prospective Directive).
29 ESMA Consultation Paper—Omnibus II, 21. The goal of ESMA has been to ensure consistent application and harmonization when it comes to incorporation by reference, providing a level playing field and limiting the risk of regulatory arbitrage. The practice of ‘voluntary filings’ of documents facilitated by certain NCAs (such as circulars sent to shareholders, financial statements not filed in accordance with the Transparency Directive, documents prepared in connection with a merger/takeover when such is not required under national provisions under the Transparency Directive), while likely seen as reducing the administrative burden on issuers offerors and persons asking for admission to trading, is, in ESMA’s opinion, not in line with the wording of Article 11, Prospectus Directive. If the co-legislators intended to facilitate incorporation of documents submitted on a voluntary basis, they would not have included the explicit requirement that filing be done in accordance with the Prospective Directive. In many cases, the facilitation of such filings by competent authorities (possible prior to 2007 but under CARD, rather than the Prospective Directive), has continued despite legislative change, and has led to a vastly different application of incorporation by reference across Member States, and this runs counter to the goal of a single rule book and may endanger the objective of investor protection: ESMA Consultation Paper—Omnibus II, 21.
30 However, these differences in liability essentially disappear once the information that is ‘furnished’ is incorporated by reference into a document (such as a prospectus or registration statement, which have their specific liability regime attached to their disclosure, i.e. to all information included therein, regardless whether expressly or by reference) that is ‘filed’ with the SEC. See Martin and Robinson (n. 11); J. Morlend, ‘Filed v. Furnished, What’s the Difference?’, 18 September 2017, https://blog.sullivanlaw.com/inhousego2/filed-v.-furnished-whats-the-difference.
31 ESMA Consultation Paper—Omnibus II, 25.
36 European Commission, ‘3rd Informal Meeting on Prospectus Transposition’, 26 January 2005, MARKT/G3/WG D(2005) (European Commission, 3rd Informal Meeting on Prospectus Transposition).
37 The CBI handbook provides that the prospectus prepared as a draw-down prospectus must contain the following parts in the following order:
38 K. Sergakis, The Law of Capital Markets in the EU (London: 2018), 61.
39 Separately by the examiner, the Special Counsel and Assistant director: Coffee Jr et al. (n. 12), 176.
41 ESMA, ‘Questions and Answers—Prospectuses’, April 2019, ESMA/2019/31-62-780, 49 (ESMA, Q&A Prospectus).
42 cf. Recital (36), NPR and ESMA, Technical Advice—Final Report, Article H and Annexe 5, 4.8 and 4.10 (listing as information that can be inserted in the final terms when not known at the time of the Base Prospectus publication in case of debt securities: interest payable, yield).
43 ESMA, Q&A Prospectus, 50.
44 ESMA, Q&A Prospectus, 11. The 2014 amendment required the home country NCA to communicate to the host competent authority the final terms, in relation to a base prospectus (Art. 5(4) final sub-para, Prospectus Directive) but missed the opportunity to clarify the same aspect within to the omission of information context: Schammo (n. 6), 109.
45 Two of the options provided under the Prospectus Directive for publishing an approved prospectus, namely the insertion in a newspaper and the printed prospectus available at the offices of the issuer, have been removed as they were considered largely outdated. However, the obligation to provide a free paper copy to anyone who requests it is maintained under Article 21(11), NPR.
46 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/301 of 30 November 2015 supplementing Directive 2003/71/EC with regard to regulatory technical standards for approval and publication of the prospectus and dissemination of advertisements and amending Regulation (EC) 809/2004 (Omnibus II).
47 The European Commission, in the context of the Consultation on the Review on the Prospectus Directive, promoted the creation of a single, centralized, EU database for prospectuses in view of the example of the Transparency Directive. According to the Commission, such a database could operate as a unique entry point for both investors and persons producing and filing prospectuses across the twenty-eight Member States and could facilitate effective cross-border access to information. Depending on its design, it could even help streamlining the process of prospectus filing by issuers. Most of the respondents to the question were in favour of this suggestion. Arguments in favour were lower costs for issuers, easier and speedier submissions and approval processes, and greater transparency. According to the respondents, an integrated system should also facilitate harmonization and the spread of best practices which, in turn, should enhance investor protection. A one-stop-shop for all relevant information (Prospectus Directive, Transparency Directive, MAR/Directive) would avoid the need for duplication of information provision, would be a natural part of the Capital Market Union, and would improve the global competitiveness of EU markets. Investors would benefit from easier access and comparison of documents and wider choice across borders. Supervisors could enhance their monitoring of the passporting of prospectuses and benefit from cooperation/best practices. In the end, separate national databases in all Member States would be more expensive: European Commission, 3rd Informal Meeting on Prospectus Transposition, 27.
48 However, that does not require the issuer, the offeror, the person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market, or the financial intermediary to keep in reserve printed copies of the prospectus to satisfy such potential requests (Recital (63)).
49 See ESMA, ‘Draft Regulatory Technical Standards under the Prospectus Regulation—Final Report’, 17 July 2018, ESMA/2018/31-62-1002 (ESMA, Draft Regulatory Technical Standards—Final Report) in particular Articles 17–20 about the publication of the prospectus and technical arrangements for the notification portal.
51 P. Mattil and F. Möslein, The Language of the Prospectus: Europeanisation and Investor Protection’, Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (2008) 23(1), 28; Sergakis (n. 38), 68.
53 See European Commission, 3rd Informal Meeting on Prospectus Transposition, 10; Schammo (n. 6), 113; Mattil and Möslein (n. 51), 29 ff.
55 See Article 27(5), NPR:
56 ESMA , Consultation Paper—Omnibus II, 14.