All financial derivatives are characterised as financial instruments under Section 4.1.15 of Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/790 of 28 February 2024 (MiFID III). Consequently, these products are subject to securities legislation, the main components of which in Spain are as follows.
The key recent legal developments in this field are as follows.
In the authors’ opinion, the main drivers of the market in the near future will be:
Spanish Stock Exchanges and Markets (Bolsas y Mercados Españoles (BME)) operates the only official Spanish market specialised in derivatives: Mercado de Derivados (MEFF). Althoughan OTC segment exists, the bulk of MEFF’s activities are focused on futures, options and swaps traded on a trading venue. The current products and their underlying assets are as follows:
MEFF has recently improved the functionalities available to retail investors. In this vein, it is worth mentioning that such investors can directly hold segregated derivatives accounts, and all retail investors’ transactions are now marked with the so-called red flag to fully comply with all regulations applicable to retail investors, especially those related to pricing. In addition to these improvements, MEFF is adding new underlying shares after each relevant IPO in Spain.
In respect of OTC options, major banks regularly offer a broad range of FX options to their clients, including retail clients, actively engaged in cross-border activities. The huge interest in these products is normally a consequence of the high volatility in FX markets, although these hedging structures can be extremely costly in practice. OTC options over underlying assets other than exchange rates are generally negotiated on a case-by-case basis and as part of structured investments.
Before the emergence of specialised trading venues, these instruments were exclusively closed by banks voluntarily acting as market makers vis-à-vis end users. Two Spanish banks (BBVA and Santander) that – on an organised, frequent, systematic and substantial basis – dealt on their own account by executing OTC derivative client orders outside a regulated market (RM), multilateral trade facility (MTF) or organised trade facility (OTF), became systematic internalisers (SIs) after meeting the applicable quantitative criteria under MiFID II.Although the current situation may change in the near future since SI status is no longer mandatory in respect of derivatives under MiFID III, at present it is very common that large end users, even non-financial counterparties (NFCs), close OTC derivatives on OTFs, since such trading venues act as online price aggregators and improve transparency.
The most relevant regulatory developments in inter-bank derivatives transactions are outlined in this article. These developments aim to enhance market resiliency and pricing transparency. In terms of transparency, the entire regulatory development has been influenced by the absence of collusive practices; however, no specific transparency standards have been established in this respect. Recent Spanish case law has focused on alleged collusion in the project finance lending market among the four largest Spanish banks, which were investigated and sanctioned by the Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)). However, this sanction was ultimately dismissed by the National High Court since the CNMC was unable to prove the existence of collusion among banks to mislead their clients on swap pricing.
There is no specific regulation on forwards other than the exceptions mentioned in 2.6 Exemptions, Non-derivative Products and Spot Transactions.
The key difference between derivatives that trade on the counter versus OTC is the fact that OTC derivatives, although generally documented on the basis of standard models, are bespoke, tailor-made products as opposed to the derivatives traded on futures and options markets, which have fully standardised terms and conditions. Since there is no room left for negotiation in relation to these derivatives, they can be listed as negotiable securities.
It is worth noting that trading on a trading venue is one of the criteria used to characterise products as derivatives, especially when the contract can – or has been – physically settled, as mentioned in 2.6 Exemptions, Non-derivative Products and Spot Transactions. Moreover, the National Securities Market Commission (Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV)) considers some securities (ie, warrants with embedded options) as derivatives.
According to the 2023 European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) Annual Statistical Report, based on the data provided by the trade repositories regulated by EMIR, the most common derivative products in the EU are those related to the following: interest rates (78%), exchange rates (14%), equity (5%), credit (4%) and commodities (1%). In its 2023 Activity Report, the CNMV summarises the number of transactions and the related notional amounts of derivatives traded on Spanish trading venues. The gross notional amount of derivatives traded on MEFF experienced a sharp decline (7.1%), although this negative trend was smaller for Spanish equity product-related segments (5%); these comprise the bulk of MEFF’s business (83.5%), which is mainly concentrated on the trading of two shares (Santander and Telefónica, accounting for up to 97% of the whole segment). In contrast, Spanish OTFs experienced a great leap forward in 2023, where the number of trades (8,676) and gross notional amounts (EUR2.97 billion) more than doubled the previous year’s figures. Largely because the trading of interest derivatives increased by 215%, with a market share of 71%, Tradition España OTF was the largest OTF in Spain, followed by CIMS SV and CAPI OTF.
There are no limits on asset classes beyond the position limits for commodity derivatives pursuant to Article 57 of MiFID III. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CNMV restricted the distribution of contracts for difference (CFDs) with high leverage ratios, setting limits on the provision of initial margin (higher than one-thirtieth for major currency pairs, one-twentieth for all other currency pairs, gold and relevant stock benchmarks, one-tenth for commodities and non-relevant stock benchmarks, one-half for crypto-assets and one-fifth for all other underlying assets) and banning the offering of binary options among retail investors from 2017 onwards, in line with previous ESMA decisions.Such restrictions also affect the publicity related to these products (the distributor must warn potential clients of the actual risks and their likely lack of suitability) and entail other protective measures:
In the last four years, derivatives on emission allowances have been steadily growing in Spain, spurred by the impending discontinuation of the emission allowances that are currently freely assigned to major emitters of greenhouse gases. At present, forwards are the most common type of OTC product in this market.
Sustainability-linked derivatives (SLDs) – ie, OTC derivatives whose pricing and/or payment obligations rely on meeting certain climate-related key performance indicators (KPIs), sustainable performance targets (SPTs) or ESG scores, are also well known in Spain. For the time being, when based on the framework contract for financial operations (contrato marco de operaciones financieras (CMOF)) model, the related provisions are typically bespoke (tailor-made). It is quite likely that, assuming the standardised clauses for SLDs of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) win favour among derivatives practitioners, such clauses will become the standard in Spanish practice.
In connection with derivatives on crypto-assets, after being fully authorised by the CNMV in 2023, MEFF published a set of terms and conditions for futures on crypto indexes in May 2024 and is about to trade futures in Bitcoin and Ethereum. This market segment is restricted to institutional investors, with all products settled by differences. MEFF does not clear any transactions involving custody arrangements. In addition to this authorisation, the CNMV released a set of rules on publicity related to crypto-assets, whose scope embraces all assets other than financial instruments and consequently should not be deemed applicable to derivative transactions. It is quite likely that the ISDA digital asset derivatives definitions will win favour in Spain in the near future, although this is a matter not yet covered by the SMA (for the time being, this piece of legislation is exclusively focused on tokens, and cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are far beyond its current scope), and there are deep concerns related to the legal nature of cryptocurrencies under Spanish law that may delay further developments in the trading of such products in Spain.
Forwards are deemed OTC derivatives except when used for commercial purposes under the terms set forth in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of 25 April 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU. The most relevant exception is the use of FX forwards as means of payment when the following conditions are met.
On 28 September 2020, the CNMV issued a set of guidelines to prevent such conditions being used as a “way out” of MiFID. In particular, these guidelines set out the operational procedures needed to check the existence of actual transactions related to goods, services and investments before closing the contract, coupled with a post-closing review of the commercial character of the related hedged activities.
In addition to the above-mentioned exception, the following criteria are laid out to prevent the characterisation of other types of transactions as derivatives.
The CNMV is the regulator of reference for derivatives and derivatives transactions as defined in the SMA. However, other regulators may also oversee certain types of derivatives transactions. For instance, the Bank of Spain (Banco de España(BdE)) is the primary regulator for a broad range of banking issues related to derivatives, such as lending practices, accounting and solvency, inter alia. Additionally, other sector-specific regulators may be involved, such as those overseeing energy, insurance or other industry-specific areas.
EMIR, as amended from time to time, and its implementing legislation are the high-level regulations on derivatives clearing. Since all these rules are deemed regulations pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, they are mandatory over the whole territory of the EU, including Spain, in accordance with its own terms.
Derivatives clearing is mandatory for those OTC agreements that are deemed liquid and sufficiently standard according to the regulatory technical standards (RTS) laid down by ESMA and adopted by the European Commission. Pursuant to Articles 4 and 5.2 of EMIR, such regulations will list the agreements subjected to mandatory clearing and the date when such obligation will enter into force. These agreements will be properly recorded on ESMA’s registry, together with the relevant dates mentioned in the foregoing and the recognised CCPs. At present, the affected agreements are rates derivatives for certain classes of interest rate derivatives (basis swaps, forward rate agreements (FRAs), interest rate swaps (IRS) and overnight indexed swaps (OIS)) and two credit default swaps (CDS) for iTraxx indices.
Not all counterparties are subject to mandatory clearing. For this purpose, based on the business thresholds over the outstanding gross notional volume of five classes of derivatives (at present, the thresholds are EUR1 billion for credit derivatives, EUR1 billion for equity derivatives, EUR3 billion for interest rate derivatives, EUR3 billion for FX derivatives and EUR4 billion for commodity derivatives and other derivatives classes, excluding intra-group transactions), all counterparties are classified into four categories: FCs, FCs minus (FC-s), NFCs and NFCs plus (NFC+s). Only FCs and NFC+s are affected (although NFC+s must exclude from this calculation all hedging transactions and clear only those OTC agreements pertaining to the class whose threshold has been exceeded) after serving a notice on ESMA once this status has been checked. When this status ceases to be applicable, a non-subjection notice is to be served as well. This test is to be carried out at monthly intervals over the previous 12 months. Intra-group transactions are exempt from any clearing obligations when both counterparties are established in the EU and previously notified their respective competent authorities in writing that they intend to make use of this exemption. Within the 30 calendar days following the receipt of that notification, the competent authority may object to the use of this exemption if the transactions between the counterparties do not meet the conditions laid down in Article 3 of EMIR. If there is a disagreement between two competent authorities, ESMA may assist those authorities in reaching an agreement. If only one group entity is in the EU, the regulator of such party will check whether all conditions are met and will adopt the corresponding decision.
It is worth noting that EMIR 3.0 will be more favourable to NFCs, since cleared derivatives are not considered when calculating the thresholds and group-level calculations will be replaced by single-entity-level ones. Finally, EMIR exempted transactions with certain EU pension schemes from any clearing obligations, but this exemption will not extend to transactions with third-country schemes. EMIR 3.0 introduces a permanent exemption from clearing for EU counterparties closing transactions with third-country pension schemes where those schemes are authorised, supervised and recognised under national law and are within the scope of a clearing exemption in their home jurisdiction. Finally, EMIR 3.0 will introduce the obligation to maintain an active account for systemically relevant products with an EU CCP (ie, OTC interest rates derivatives in euros and zlotys as well as short-term interest rate derivatives in euros), and MiFID III removes the mandatory provision by trading venues of open and non-discriminatory access to a CCP, with a reciprocal requirement for CCPs to provide access for trading venues, when clearing exchange-traded derivatives (ETDs).
As per Articles 28 and 32 of MiFIR II, all counterparties subjected to mandatory clearing must close the corresponding transactions with another entity also subject to such obligation on a trading venue (including equivalent third-country trading venues). Investment firms acting as an SI are excluded from the scope of this regulation. For such cases, ESMA was authorised to draft regulatory technical standards (RTS), later adopted by the European Commission as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2417. Despite the similarities with the clearing obligation, their scopes are different, albeit aligned, since derivatives subjected to mandatory trading must fulfil two specific tests: (i) the trading venue test, where the affected derivatives must be traded at least on one trading venue; and (ii) the liquidity test, which is exclusively based on the requirements of the relevant benchmarks instead of the notional amount of the transactions.
This matter is regulated by MiFID III and is transposed into Spanish law by Article 78 of the SMA and Articles 129 through 141 of Royal Decree 814/2023, of 8 November 2023, on financial instruments, listing, negotiable securities records and market infrastructures. The CNMV, acting through its steering committee (comité ejecutivo), is the national competent authority in Spain that calculates and enforces position limits in respect of Spanish trading venues, while its president as well as its vice-president are authorised to grant exemptions to such limits, as per the CNMV Resolution dated 22 March 2024. Notwithstanding the decisions that trading venues may take in the event that position limits are exceeded, the CNMV may impose sanctions corresponding to those in the SMA. As per the SMA, position limits – and updates thereof – on Spanish trading venues are made public by the CMNV on its website, with the currently applicable resolution dated 18 March 2021. At present, the scope of EU position limits regulation is limited to agricultural – and other critical and relevant – commodities and is calculated over net positions, excluding positions closed for hedging or liquidity purposes.
The relevant ESMA legislation covers three areas:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, ESMA is reviewing margin call levels and position limits.
The two most relevant reporting duties are those required by EMIR (reporting of transactions to trade repositories) and by MiFID III and MiFIR II (pre- and post-trade transparency and post-trade reporting duties). It is worth noting that ESMA was expressly mandated to enhance the co-ordination of these two reporting regimes, since their co-existence can easily lead to duplications, as well as to align transparency and transaction reporting obligations. Moreover, both reporting regimes are amended by MiFIR II and EMIR 3.0, which will result in the temporal disapplication of some new provisions until the currently applicable RTS has been amended.
EMIR reporting covers all derivatives transactions (both OTC and exchange-traded) and was originally mandatory for all counterparties. However, this situation proved to be extremely burdensome for NFCs, and the duplicated regime caused several reporting mistakes. The amendment of Article 9 of EMIR by Regulation (EU) 2019/834 (EMIR Refit) made FCs and FC-s solely responsible, and legally liable, for reporting on behalf of NFCs other than NFC+s, as well as for ensuring the correctness of the details reported. Nevertheless, NFCs may voluntarily choose to report the corresponding transactions and, if feasible, to enter into delegation agreements to fulfil such duties. The data subjected to these reporting obligations is to be provided to the trade repositories regulated by EMIR on a trading day plus one business day (T+1) basis. If at least one of the counterparties is an NFC, provided that (i) both parties are included in the same consolidation group on a full-time basis, (ii) both parties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures, and (iii) the parent undertaking is not an FC, both parties may apply for an exemption to the local regulators. Counterparties shall notify their competent authorities of their intention to apply for this exemption, which will be applicable except if the regulator disagrees within the three months following the receipt of such proposal.
Among the changes introduced by MiFIR II and EMIR 3.0, it is worth noting the following.
EMIR 3.0 will also require EU clearing members and clearing clients who clear in recognised third-country CCPs to report details of their clearing activity in those CCPs to their competent authorities.
Business conduct requirements for parties engaged in derivatives trading are primarily regulated under the MiFID and MiFIR frameworks. These regulations have an extensive scope and require a thorough analysis. The following is a summary of the key business conduct requirements applicable to such parties.
The business conduct requirements covered are as follows:
CNMV enacted specific regulations to enhance the protection of end users in respect of the distribution of derivatives, as follows.
There are no local regulators in the securities market. However, territorial consumer agencies are involved in claims related to the distribution of financial instruments relatively frequently, although their activities are exclusively based on the Spanish General Consumers Protection Act.
Although they are not self-regulatory entities, the Spanish Banking Association (Asociación Española de Banca (AEB)) and the Spanish Confederation of Saving Banks (Confederación Española de Cajas de Ahorro (CECA)) have co-operated to draft framework agreements under Spanish Law since 1997 (CMOF). To date, four versions of the CMOF have been made public, all of which are easily available on AEB’s website. At present, both entities are associations. There are no other similar initiatives in Spain.
As mentioned above, the CMOF is the standard documentation for OTC derivatives in Spain. This contractual standard is adapted to Spanish Law and drafted in Spanish, albeit that the parties are free to choose the governing law and the disputes resolution mechanism. In this vein, the CMOF has alternative clauses to assist the parties in choosing the competent jurisdiction or tribunals, or alternatively in submitting the contract to arbitration. It is worth noting that the choice-of-court, arbitration and governing law clauses were amended in the 2020 version to ensure that such elections embraced all transactions covered by the CMOF, and that all relevant causes of action fell within their scope regardless of their characterisation as contractual or tort claims. The use of CMOF models is quite common in Spain, mostly because the vast majority of end users’ transactions are not international and hedged positions are based on agreements also drafted in Spanish. However, the CMOF standard has no definitions beyond its Annex II and must be adapted to document transactions other than interest rates transactions. Although this standard may be used in any Spanish-speaking country, it is mainly used in Spain as a domestic documentation standard.
Although framework agreements are the most commonly used option in Spain, forward transactions represent a notable exception. Two factors can fully explain this situation. First, when such transactions are not characterised as derivatives, and this is the only type of contract negotiated between the parties, the use of framework agreements may be controversial because the scope of close-out netting provisions is limited to qualified transactions. Second, some forwards, such as energy forwards, are usually entered into between non-qualified entities, which excludes these transactions from the scope of Spanish close-out netting provisions. The current version of the CMOF standard, made public in 2020, was adapted to EMIR and Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 (Benchmark Regulation). Accordingly, this version has two forms of Annex III pertaining to the posting of collateral by means of property transfers: (i) one adapted to the regulation on variation margin and (ii) a simplified model for all other cases.
In Spain, ISDA standard documentation is commonly used for international agreements, including:
EMIR 3.0 will permanently exempt all uncleared single-stock equity options and equity index options from the mandatory exchange of initial and variation margin. This new exemption is to be reviewed by ESMA every three years and is removable by the European Commission, but the market will have at least two years’ notice should the Commission decide to remove it. However, although this development may spur the use of single documents to document these types of derivatives, as far as the authors know, there is no interest in changing current practice.
As mentioned in 4.1.1 Industry Standards and Master Agreements, the current version of the CMOF standard, made public in 2020, was adapted to EMIR and Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 (Benchmark Regulation). Accordingly, this version has two forms of Annex III pertaining to the posting of collateral by means of property transfers: (i) one adapted to the regulation on variation margin to be used between FCs and FC-s and (ii) a simplified model to be used in transactions with commercial end users. In connection with international agreements, the authors have used ISDA standard documentation: 1995 ISDA Credit Support Annex (Transfer – English Law, amended when used with the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement) and 2016 ISDA Credit Support Annex for Variation Margin (VM) (Title Transfer – English Law).
In connection with initial margin, a new Annex V was added to the CMOF to document such margin exchange based on the creation of pledges governed by Spanish law pursuant to Royal Decree-Law (RDL) 5/2005. Since the pledged assets should be deposited in accounts opened at an insolvency-remote entity, the BME is offering a deposits management service to its clients. In connection with international agreements complying with initial margin provisions, professionals belonging to this law firm have been involved in the negotiation and documentation of this regulatory requirement. In all cases, the collateral was held in accounts opened at Euroclear and Clearstream. The following ISDA documentation standards are used: the ISDA 2019 Clearstream Collateral Transfer Agreement, ISDA 2019 Clearstream Security Agreements (Luxembourg Law), ISDA 2019 Euroclear Collateral Transfer Agreement and ISDA 2019 Euroclear Security Agreements, coupled with the corresponding triparty margining services agreements.
International standards such as Global Master Repurchase Agreements (GMRAs), Master Repurchase Agreements (MRAs), Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (MSFTAs), Global Master Securities Lending Agreements (GMSLAs) and Master Securities Lending Agreements (MSLAs) are exclusively used in connection with international repo and securities lending transactions. In Spain, it was quite common to use the EMA, sponsored by the European Banking Federation (EBF), the European Savings Bank Group and the European Association of Cooperative Banks, to document repos and securities lending agreements. Only the 2001 version of the EMA was drafted in Spanish, and the updated versions have therefore never been used for such purposes. It is worth noting that the parties commonly elect to use Spanish law to govern the EMA when applied in domestic transactions.
In connection with ISDA master agreements, the standards sponsored by the Futures Industry Association (FIA; formerly the Futures and Options Association (FOA)) and ISDA are generally used in connection with peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions to be cleared in a CCP. When the services of a clearing member are needed, it is customary in Spain to sign and execute a bespoke tailor-made agency agreement, coupled with an ISDA Master Agreement between the client and the clearing member, with an addendum to deal with cleared transactions governed by the CCP’s rulebook and the opening of a segregated account. In Spain, the 2020 CMOF includes an Annex IV, in line with ISDA/FIA-sponsored standards for P2P transactions within the EU. In respect of derivatives traded on a trading venue, CCPs use the agency model instead of the principal model used in Europe.
The most common concerns arising from the negotiations between brokers and clients to clear standard derivatives are as follows:
At the level of the EU, Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR)), require that credit entities obtain legal opinions in respect of regulatory capital obligations on OTC derivatives, as follows:
According to the CNMV’s 2023 Activity Report (the most recent one available), the CNMV’s main enforcing actions have focused on the following areas.
The CNMV also made a biennial strategic plan public in 2023 to provide information on its future activities.
Likewise, the 2024 working plan, with 42 specific goals, was also published on its website.
Av Diagonal 618
08021 Barcelona
Spain
+34 936 119 232
+34 935 126 124
spain@caseslacambra.com www.caseslacambra.com