MiFID II for lawyers: client categories, suitability and appropriateness tests, product governance and conflicts of interest.
Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments (MiFID II), in force since January 2018, and its Spanish transposition through Royal Decree-Law 14/2018, establish the regulatory framework for investment services in the EU.
For lawyers, MiFID II is relevant in multiple contexts: advising financial entities, litigation over complex financial products, due diligence in corporate transactions, and consumer financial protection.
MiFID II classifies clients into three categories, each with a different level of protection:
Any natural or legal person who is neither professional nor an eligible counterparty. Receives the highest level of protection: more detailed information, mandatory suitability or appropriateness tests, enhanced best execution.
Entities meeting at least two of three criteria: total balance sheet exceeding 20 million euros, net turnover exceeding 40 million euros, or own funds exceeding 2 million euros. Institutional investors (funds, insurers, credit institutions) are also included. They receive an intermediate level of protection.
Credit institutions, investment firms, insurance companies, collective investment schemes, and national governments. They receive the minimum level of protection and can negotiate directly without most safeguards.
A key point for lawyers: a financial entity can reclassify a professional client as retail (more protection) or request reclassification of a retail client as professional (less protection), but the latter requires express assessment and written consent.
Mandatory when the entity provides investment advice or discretionary portfolio management. It must evaluate:
If the product is not suitable, the entity cannot recommend it.
Mandatory for services other than advice (order execution, reception and transmission). It evaluates only the client's knowledge and experience. If the product is not appropriate, the entity must warn the client, who may still proceed.
For non-complex products (listed shares, UCITS funds, bonds without derivatives), the client can trade without any test if the transaction is self-initiated. However, the entity must correctly classify the product as "non-complex."
MiFID II strengthens transparency requirements:
A core MiFID II pillar: manufacturers of financial products must define a target market for each product, specifying the type of client, needs, characteristics, and objectives. Distributors must verify that the product is compatible with the end client's needs.
This concept is especially relevant in litigation over complex products (preference shares, convertible bonds, derivatives): if the product was sold outside its target market, it constitutes a relevant regulatory breach.
Entities must identify, prevent, and manage conflicts of interest that may harm the client. This includes:
Video coming soon
For now you can read the written content below
A bank recommends a 68-year-old retail client to invest 80% of their savings in a high-risk equity fund. The suitability test indicates a conservative profile with a short time horizon. Has MiFID II been complied with?
An investment firm sells preference shares to a retail client without performing the appropriateness test, arguing the client initiated the transaction. Is this correct?
Which of the following MiFID II client categories receives the lowest level of regulatory protection?
A financial entity designs a structured product with a knock-in barrier linked to three stock indices. What is its product governance obligation?
A financial advisor receives a 3% commission from a fund they recommend to clients, without informing them. Is this compatible with MiFID II?
Have your own legal questions?
The Individual Plan gives you 50 queries/month with answers verified against official legal sources.