Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JANUARY 2018

Updated CSSF UCI FAQ: Policy Change Regarding Investments In Non-UCITS ETFs

KPMG Luxembourg
Explore more from KPMG Luxembourg

On 5 January 2018, the CSSF updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on the Law of 17 December 2010 (the "UCI Law") in relation to investment by UCITS in other UCIs as per Article 41(1)(e)...

LuxembourgFinance and Banking
Gabrielle Jaminon
Gabrielle Jaminon
Author LinkedIn connections

On 5 January 2018, the CSSF updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on the Law of 17 December 2010 (the "UCI Law") in relation to investment by UCITS in other UCIs as per Article 41(1)(e) of the UCI Law on the UCITS' investment policies.

This update is accompanied by a Press Release explaining the CSSF's change in policy.

In this respect FAQ 1.4 which used to explain the requirements allowing UCITS to invest in non-UCITS ETFs has been deleted.

The FAQ 1.4 used to state that:

"Non-UCITS ETFs are eligible investments for UCITS if they effectively comply with all criteria of Articles 2(2) and 41(1)(e) of the Law 2010, notwithstanding that the offering documents of non-UCITS ETFs grant possibilities which are not equivalent to requirements applicable to UCITS.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

CRD VI: The EU's Cross-border Banking Rules Are Changing For Non-EU Institutions. Are You Ready?

The EU's third-country branch regime under CRD VI fundamentally changes how non-EU banks can serve European clients, requiring most institutions to establish authorized branches or subsidiaries by January 2027. With national transposition underway and a critical grandfathering deadline already passed, affected institutions must urgently assess their EU activities, evaluate available exemptions, and determine whether their current operating models remain viable under the harmonized framework.
European UnionFinance and Banking
DLA Piper
DLA Piper
Article

CSSF Imposes Fine For AML And Sanctions Compliance Violations

Luxembourg's CSSF imposed a €56,000 fine on Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A. for multiple compliance failures, including significant delays in processing sanctions screening alerts and implementing changes to screening lists. At the time of inspection, hundreds of alerts had been treated with substantial delays and 42 alerts remained completely unnoticed by the financial services provider.
LuxembourgFinance and Banking
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

AIFMD II: Key Implementation Developments In Luxembourg

Two years on from the entry into force of Directive (EU) 2024/927, commonly referred to as AIFMD II, the 16 April 2026 transposition deadline has passed, and the state of play across the EU is best described as uneven, with compliance posture increasingly dependent on where an AIFM is authorised. However, Luxembourg, which hosts the largest shares of EU AIFs within the Union, transposed the Directive without material gold-plating.
European UnionFinance and Banking
Maples Group
Maples Group
Article

The AIFMD II Directive And Financing Transactions

The Luxembourg law of March 3, 2026 transposed the AIFMD II Directive into national law, introducing significant changes to the regulatory framework governing alternative investment funds. This article examines the practical implications for financing transactions involving Luxembourg AIFs, analyzing how the new rules on loan origination, leverage caps, concentration limits, and enhanced disclosure requirements affect both lenders and borrowers in structured finance arrangements.
LuxembourgFinance and Banking
Dechert
Dechert
Article

Reverse Solicitation: The Exception That Regulators Expect To Remain Exceptional

Reverse solicitation remains one of the most scrutinised concepts in fund distribution, offering a legitimate route for investment when approached entirely on the investor's initiative. Yet the distinction between genuine unsolicited interest and marketing activity carries significant regulatory consequences, requiring AIFMs to navigate narrow fact-specific exceptions rather than treating it as a designed distribution model.
LuxembourgFinance and Banking
Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff
Article

Luxembourg Private Funds Organised As Companies: How To Make Them Fit For Purpose

Luxembourg's partnership limited by shares (SCA) offers private fund managers a compelling corporate alternative to the special limited partnership structure, particularly for EU family offices and high-net-worth individuals. When combined with the RAIF regime, this vehicle achieves tax neutrality while maintaining the corporate governance framework that certain investors prefer. The SCA-RAIF structure addresses key legal and tax considerations while providing flexibility for secondary strategies, fund-of-f
LuxembourgFinance and Banking
Loyens & Loeff
Loyens & Loeff