On 7 March 2014, the Central Bank published revised guidance relating to third party approval and fund authorisation processes.  The current position is detailed below.

Investment managers

  1. Investment managers or sub-investment managers which are one of the following entities will not usually be subject to an additional regulatory review process by the Central Bank:
  1. UCITS management companies authorised under Directive 2009/65/EC
  2. Investment firms authorised under Directive 2004/39/EC (MiFID) to provide portfolio management
  3. Credit institutions authorised under Directive 2006/48/EC to provide portfolio management under MiFID
  4. externally-appointed AIFMs authorised under AIFMD.

(previously, this listing included  "firms who are subject to regulation in other jurisdictions and recognised as such by the Central Bank", these firms will now be subject to paragraph 2 below).

Applicants should ensure that details of the proposed investment manager and email contact details for the relevant regulatory authority are provided to the Central Bank in sufficient time to enable verification of its home Member State approval.  This will not be necessary if an entity is on a relevant passport register maintained by the Central Bank.    

  1. Firms which are not one of the entities listed in paragraph 1 will only be considered where the competent authority in the home jurisdiction of the investment manager has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Central Bank in accordance with AIFMD.  In addition, such firms will be subject to a review process which requires completion of the Central Bank's Investment Manager clearance form.

Where the firm is regulated in a jurisdiction not considered to-date by the Central Bank, it must be demonstrated, by way of a formal submission, that the regulatory regime for asset management in the relevant jurisdiction is comparable to the model of prudential regulation applicable to firms included in categories (a) to (d) above.  The Central Bank has accepted the following jurisdictions as having a comparable regulatory regime:  Australia; Bahamas; Bermuda; Brazil; Canada; Dubai; Guernsey; Hong Kong; India; Japan; Jersey; Singapore; South Africa; Switzerland; and the United States.