Related provisions for SUP 1A.4.7

1

Can a body corporate be both open-ended and closed-ended at the same time?

In the FCA's view, the answer to this question is 'no'. The fact that the investment condition is applied to BC (rather than to particular shares in, or securities of, BC) means that a body corporate is either an open-ended investment company as defined in section 236 of the Act or it is not. Where BC is an open-ended investment company, all of its securities would be treated as units of a collective investment scheme for the purpose of the Act. A body corporate formed in another jurisdiction may, however, be regarded as open-ended under the laws of that jurisdiction but not come within the definition of an open-ended investment company in section 236 (and vice versa).

2

Can an open-ended investment company become closed-ended (or a closed-ended body become open-ended)?

In the FCA's view, the answer to this question is 'yes'. A body corporate may change from open-ended to closed-ended (and vice versa) if, taking an overall view, circumstances change so that a hypothetical reasonable investor would consider that the investment condition is no longer met (or vice versa). This might happen where, for example, an open-ended investment company stops its policy of redeeming shares or securities at regular intervals (so removing the expectation that a reasonable investor would be able to realise his investment within a period appearing to him to be reasonable). See also PERG 9.7.5 G.

3

Does the liquidation of a body corporate affect the assessment of whether or not the body is an open-ended investment company?

The FCA considers that the possibility that a body corporate that would otherwise be regarded as closed-ended may be wound up has no effect at all on the nature of the body corporate before the winding up. The fact that, on a winding up, the shares or securities of any investor in the body corporate may be converted into cash or money on the winding up (and so 'realised') would not, in the FCA's view, affect the outcome of applying the expectation test to the body corporate when looked at as a whole. The answer to Question 4 explains that investment in a closed-ended fixed term company shortly before its winding up does not, in the FCA view, change the closed-ended nature of the company. For companies with no fixed term, the theoretical possibility of a winding up at some uncertain future point is not, in the FCA's view, a matter that would generally carry weight with a reasonable investor in assessing whether he could expect to be able to realise his investment within a reasonable period.

4

Does a fixed term closed-ended investment company become an open-ended investment company simply because the fixed term will expire?

In the FCA's view, the answer to this is 'no'. The termination of the body corporate is an event that has always been contemplated (and it will appear in the company's constitution). Even as the date of the expiry of the fixed term approaches, there is nothing about the body corporate itself that changes so as to cause a fundamental reassessment of its nature as something other than closed-ended. Addressing this very point in parliamentary debate, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated that the "aim and effect [of the definition] is to cover companies that look, to a reasonable investor, like open-ended investment companies". The Minister added that "A reasonable investor's overall expectations of potential investment in a company when its status with respect to the definition is being judged will determine whether it meets the definition. The matter is therefore, definitional rather than one of proximity to liquidation". (Hansard HC, 5 June 2000 col 124).

5

In what circumstances will a body corporate that issues a mixture of redeemable and non-redeemable shares or securities be an open-ended investment company?

In the FCA's view, the existence of non-redeemable shares or securities will not, of itself, rule out the possibility of a body corporate falling within the definition of an open-ended investment company. All the relevant circumstances will need to be considered (see PERG 9.6.4 G, PERG 9.2.8.8G and PERG 9.8.9 G). So the following points need to be taken into account.

• The precise terms of the issue of all the shares or securities will be relevant to the question whether the investment condition is met, as will any arrangements that may exist to allow the investor to realise his investment by other means.
• The proportions of the different share classes will be relevant to the impression the reasonable investor forms of the body corporate. A body corporate that issues only a minimal amount of redeemable shares or securities will not, in theFCA's view, be an open-ended investment company. A body corporate that issues a minimal amount of non-redeemable shares or securities will be likely to be an open-ended investment company. A body corporate that falls within the definition of an open-ended investment company is likely to have (and to be marketed as having) mainly redeemable shares or securities. However, whether or not the body corporate does fall within the definition in any particular case will be subject to any contrary indications there may be in its constitutional documents or otherwise.
• Where shares or securities are only redeemable after the end of a stated period, this factor will make it more likely that the body corporate is open-ended than if the shares or securities are never redeemable.

6

Does "realised on a basis calculated wholly or mainly by reference to..." in section 236(3)(b) apply to an investor buying investment trust company shares traded on a recognised investment exchange because of usual market practice that the shares trade at a discount to asset value?

In the FCA's view, the answer is 'no' (for the reasons set out in PERG 9.9.4 G to PERG 9.9.6 G).

7

Does the practice of UK investment trust companies buying back shares result in them becoming open-ended investment companies?

In the FCA's view, it does not, because its actions will comply with company law: see section 236(4) of the Act and PERG 9.6.5 G.

8

Would a body corporate holding out redemption or repurchase of its shares or securities every six months be an open-ended investment company?

In the FCA's view a period of six months would generally be too long to be a reasonable period for a liquid securities fund. A shorter period affording more scope for an investor to take advantage of any profits caused by fluctuations in the market would be more likely to be a reasonable period for the purpose of the realisation of the investment (in the context of the 'expectation' test, see PERG 9.8 and, in particular, PERG 9.8.9 G which sets out the kind of factors that may need to be considered in applying the test).

9

Would an initial period during which it is not possible to realise investment in a body corporate mean that the body corporate could not satisfy the investment condition?

In the FCA's view, the answer to that question is 'no'. In applying the investment condition, the body corporate must be considered as a whole (see PERG 9.6.3 G). At the time that the shares or securities in a body corporate are issued, a reasonable investor may expect that he will be able to realise his investment within a reasonable period notwithstanding that there will first be a short-term delay before he can do so. Whether or not the 'expectation test' is satisfied will depend on all the circumstances (see PERG 9.8.9 G).

MARKETING AND EFFECTING INTRODUCTIONS

Passive display of information -for example, medical insurance brochures in doctor’s surgery (whether or not remuneration is received for this activity)

No.

Merely displaying information does not constitute making arrangements under article 25(2) (see PERG 5.6.4 G).

Recommending a broker/insurance undertaking and providing customer with contact details (whether by phone, fax, e-mail, face-to-face or any other means of communication)

Yes, but article 72C may be available.

This will constitute making arrangements under article 25(2). But, the exclusion in article 72C will apply if all the intermediary does is supply information to the customer and the conditions of article 72C are otherwise met (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G). Generally, this will not amount to advice under article 53(1)1 unless there is an implied recommendation of a particular policy (see PERG 5.8.4 G), in which case article 72C would not be available.

Providing an insurance undertaking/broker with contact details of customer

Yes.

This will constitute making arrangements under article 25(2) when undertaken in the context of regular or ongoing arrangements for introducing customers. Article 72C will not apply because the information is supplied to someone other than the policyholder or potential policyholder.

Marketing on behalf of insurance undertaking to intermediaries only (for example, broker consultants)

Yes.

This amounts to work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance and so constitutes making arrangements under article 25(2). Article 72C is not available because this activity does not involve provision of information to the policyholder or potential policyholder only.

Telemarketing services (that is, companies specialising in marketing an insurance undertaking's products/services to prospective customers)

Yes.

This amounts to introducing and/or other work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance and so constitutes making arrangements under article 25(2). This could also involve article 25(1) arranging where the telemarketing company actually sells a particular policy and could involve advising on investments. Article 72C will not be available where the provision of information is more than incidental to the telemarketing company’s main business or where the telemarketing company is advising on investments.

PRE-PURCHASE DISCUSSIONS WITH CUSTOMERS AND ADVICE

Discussion with client about need for insurance generally/need to take out a particular type of insurance

Generally, no. Article 72C available if needed.

Not enough, of itself, to constitute making arrangements under article 25(2), but you should consider whether, viewed as a whole, your activities might amount to arranging. If so, article 72C might be of application (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G).

Advising on the level of cover needed

Generally, no. Article 72C available if needed.

Not enough, of itself, to constitute making arrangements under article 25(2), but you should consider whether, viewed as a whole, your activities might amount to making arrangements under article 25(2) (see PERG 5.8.3 G). If so, article 72C might be of application (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G).

Pre-purchase questioning in the context of filtered sales (intermediary asks a series of questions and then suggests several policies which suit the answers given)

Yes. Subject to article 72 C exclusion where available.

This will constitute arranging although article 72C may be of application (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G). If there is no express or implied recommendation of a particular policy, this activity will not amount to advice under article 53(1)1 (see PERG 5.8.15 G to PERG 5.8.19 G).

Explanation of the terms of a particular policy or comparison of the terms of different policies

Possibly. Article 72C available.

This is likely to amount to making arrangements under article 25(2). In certain circumstances, it could involve advising on investments (except P2P agreements)1 (see PERG 5.8.8 G (Advice or information)). Where the explanation is provided to the potential policyholder, and does not involve advising on investments (except P2P agreements)1, article 72C may be of application (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G), and where information is provided by a professional in the course of a profession, article 67 may apply (see PERG 5.11.9 G to PERG 5.11.12 G).

Advising that a customer take out a particular policy

Yes.

This amounts to advice on the merits of a particular policy under article 53(1)1 (see PERG 5.8.4 G to PERG 5.8.5 G).

Advising that a customer does not take out a particular policy

Yes.

This amounts to advice on the merits of a particular policy under article 53(1)1 (see PERG 5.8.4 G to PERG 5.8.5 G).

Advice by journalists in newspapers, broadcasts etc.

Generally, no because of the article 54 exclusion.

Article 54 provides an exclusion for advice given in newspapers etc (see PERG 5.8.24 G to PERG 5.8.25 G).

Giving advice to a customer in relation to his buying a consumer product, where insurance is a compulsory secondary purchase and/or a benefit that comes with buying the product

Not necessarily but depends on the circumstances.

Where the advice relates specifically to the merits of the consumer product, it is possible that references to the accompanying insurance may be seen to be information and not advice. If, however, the advice relates, in part, to the merits of the insurance element, then it will be regulated activity.

ASSISTING CUSTOMERS WITH COMPLETING/SENDING APPLICATION FORMS

Providing information to customer who fills in application form

Possibly. Subject to article 67 or 72C exclusions where available.

This activity may amount to arranging although the exclusions in article 67 (see PERG 5.11.9 G to PERG 5.11.12 G) and article 72C (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G) may be of application.

Helping a potential policyholder fill in an application form

Yes.

This activity amounts to arranging. Article 72C will not apply because this activity goes beyond the mere provision of information to a policyholder or potential policyholder (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G).

Receiving completed proposal forms for checking and forwarding to an insurance undertaking (for example, an administration outsourcing service provider that receives and processes proposal forms)

Yes.

This amounts to arranging. Article 72C does not apply because this activity goes beyond the mere provision of information to a policyholder or potential policyholder (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G).

Assisting in completion of proposal form and sending to insurance undertaking

Yes.

This activity amounts to arranging. Article 72C does not apply because this activity goes beyond the mere provision of information (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G).

NEGOTIATING AND CONCLUDING CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE

Negotiating terms of policy on behalf of a customer with the insurance undertaking

Yes.

This activity amounts to arranging (see PERG 5.6.2 G).

Negotiating terms of policy on behalf of insurance undertaking with the customer and signing proposal form on his behalf

Yes.

These activities amount to both arranging and dealing in investments as agent.

Concluding a contract of insurance on insurance company’s behalf, for example, motor dealer who has authority to conclude insurance contract on behalf of insurance undertaking when selling a car

Yes.

A person carrying on this activity will be dealing in investments as agent. He will also be arranging (as the article 28 exclusion only applies in the limited circumstances envisaged under article 28(3)) (see PERG 5.6.12 G).

Agreeing, on behalf of a prospective policyholder, to buy a policy.

Yes.

A person who, with authority, enters into a contract of insurance on behalf of another is dealing in investments as agent under article 21, and will also be arranging.

Providing compulsory insurance as a secondary purchase

Yes. It will amount to dealing in investments as agent or arranging.

The fact that the insurance is secondary to the primary product does not alter the fact that arranging the package involves arranging the insurance.

COLLECTION OF PREMIUMS

Collection of cheque for premium from the customer at the pre-contract stage.

Yes (as part of arranging).

This activity is likely to form part of arranging. But the mere collection/receipt of premiums from the customer is unlikely, without more, to amount to arranging.

Collection of premiums at post-contract stage

No.

The mere collection of premiums from policyholders is unlikely, without more, to amount to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance.

MID-TERM ADJUSTMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Solicitors or licensed conveyancers discharging client instructions to assign contracts of insurance.

Not where article 67 applies.

As the assignment of rights under a contract of insurance (as opposed to the creation of new contracts of insurance) does not fall within the IMD, article 67 is of potential application (see PERG 5.11.9 G to PERG 5.11.12 G).

Making mid-term adjustments to a policy, for example, property manager notifies changes to the names of the leaseholders registered as “interested parties” in the policy in respect of the property.

Yes.

Assuming the freeholder (as policyholder) is obliged under the terms of the policy to notify the insurance undertaking of changes to the identity of the leaseholders, the property manager is likely to be assisting in the administration and the performance of the contract of insurance.

TRADED ENDOWMENT POLICIES (“TEPs”)

Making introductions for the purposes of selling TEPs

Yes, unless article 72C applies.

Making introductions for these purposes is arranging unless article 72C applies (see PERG 5.6.5 G to PERG 5.6.9 G). The exclusions in article 29 (Arranging deals with or through authorised persons) and 33 (Introducing) no longer apply to arranging contracts of insurance.

Market makers in TEPs

Yes, although the exclusion in article 28 may apply.

Unauthorised market makers can continue to make use of the exclusions in articles 15 (Absence of holding out etc.) and 16 (Dealing in contractually based investments), where appropriate. In order to avoid the need for authorisation in respect of arranging they may be able to rely upon article 28 (see PERG 5.6.12 G).

ASSISTING POLICYHOLDER WITH MAKING A CLAIM

Merely providing information to the insured to help him complete a claim form

No.

Of itself, this is likely to amount to assisting in the administration but not the performance of a contract of insurance. In the FCA's view, the provision of information in these circumstances is more akin to facilitating performance of a contract of insurance rather than assisting in the performance (see PERG 5.7.3 G to PERG 5.7.5 G)

Completion of claim form on behalf of insured

Potentially.

This activity amounts to assisting in the administration of a contract of insurance. Whether this activity amounts to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance will depend upon whether a person's assistance in filling in a claims form is material to whether performance of the contractual obligation to notify a claim takes place (see PERG 5.7.2 G to PERG 5.7.3 G).

Notification of claim to insurance undertaking and helping negotiate its settlement on the policyholder's behalf

Yes.

This activity amounts to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance (see PERG 5.7.4 G).

ASSISTING INSURANCE UNDERTAKING WITH CLAIMS BY POLICYHOLDERS

Negotiation of settlement of claims on behalf of an insurance undertaking

No.

Claims management on behalf of an insurance undertaking does not amount to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance by virtue of the exclusion in article 39B (see PERG 5.7.7 G).

Providing information to an insurance undertaking in connection with its investigation or assessment of a claim

No.

This activity does not amount to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance.

Loss adjusters and claims management services (for example, by administration outsourcing providers)

Potentially.

These activities may amount to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance. Article 39B excludes these activities, however, when undertaken on behalf of an insurance undertaking only (see PERG 5.7.7 G).

Providing an expert appraisal of a claim

No.

This activity does not amount to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance whether carried out on behalf of an insurance undertaking or otherwise.

Jeweller repairs customer’s jewellery pursuant to a policy which permits the jeweller to carry out repairs

No.

This activity does not amount to assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance. It amounts to managing claims on behalf of an insurance undertaking and so falls within the exclusion in article 39B (see PERG 5.7.7 G).