The court annulled a BCU resolution that designates Pilay Uruguay as trustee

The court annulled a BCU resolution that designates Pilay Uruguay as trustee

According to the Administrative Litigation Court, the central monetary authority wrongly granted an authorization in a trust in November 2010.

Photo: BCU

He Administrative Litigation Court (TCA) defined that the Central Bank of Uruguay (BCU) gave a bad license to the company Pilay Uruguay to act as trustee of a trust in 2010. The ruling was a consequence of the presentation of the company Consorcio del Uruguay, which perceived itself harmed by Pilay in the real estate savings market.

In November 2010, the Superintendency of Financial Services of the BCU granted Pilay Uruguay permission to market a product that tried to capture public savings, but without any authorization or registration to carry it out. According to the first conclusion of the TCA statement is that the resolution was totally null.

“Pilay Uruguay (Campiglia & Pilay) was not a financial intermediation entity, therefore, to be a trustee of a financial trust, it must be formalized and registered as an investment fund management company,” the statement states in relation to the Law 17,703, Article 26 that highlights, only financial intermediation entities may be trustees.

Another of the exhibited articles is number 129 of the Compilation of Stock Market Regulations and it is related to the fact that, in order to be authorized, companies must comply with requirements such as having the exclusive purpose of managing investment funds, including in their name that they are “investment fund managers” and having their legal form as corporations with registered shares. , physical or book-entry, something that Pilay Uruguay had not strictly complied with.

That is why the TCA concludes that the Superintendence of Financial Services “has exceeded its faculties or powers which, as it results from the legal texts, are regulated powers, not discretionary”, to which it added that the BCU “does not have power to authorize a company to function as an investment fund administrator, when it had not complied with the legal requirements or requirements”. That is why the annulment of the BCU resolution was concluded.

Source: Ambito

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts