REMIT and MAR differ significantly in their market abuse prosecution regimes when it comes to the obligations of proprietary traders. Temporarily?

 

 

What was the essence of the dispute between the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Commission as regards the inside information publications under REMIT and MAR?

Does it influence on the ongoing regulatory practice?

 

 

I'm sure your company has in place documented systems and procedures to conduct - with due diligence -  assessments, which of your emissions data will have the potential to influence on the market price of carbon (or that the said impact is, for example, negligible).

 

No? But, obviously, you have already verified whether your company exceeded, at the group level, the threshold of 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year or a rated thermal input of 2,430 MW. Not true? I don't believe it! 

 

If, neglecting the above issues, you're counting on the fact that your company is already publishing inside information under the REMIT Regulation, this misunderstanding may have severe consequences.

 

 

The impact of the new regulatory measure is estimated (assuming the threshold of 6 million tonnes a year) that 70 companies would be captured by the requirement to disclose inside information on the carbon market (approximately 56% being energy producer and the rest other industrial emitters) accounting for 70% of the total verified emissions, and 857 companies would be exempted.