What Brexit Could Mean for Passporting Fintechs in EEA
With Brexit, will the right to gain licensure no longer be allowed between the U.K. and neighboring countries?In the payments space, fintech companies…
October 17, 2017 at 10:34 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
With Brexit, will the right to gain licensure no longer be allowed between the U.K. and neighboring countries?
In the payments space, fintech companies have in the past enjoyed the protections of passporting, the right of companies to gain licensure in one European country and subsequently operate in any European Economic Area (EEA) country.
But with the vote that approved Brexit, companies are left in a “precarious position,” according to Crissy Solh, product and commercial counsel at Square. That's because more than one-third of the close to 13,500 companies that passport in the EEA first became licensed in the U.K., Solh explained during the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Monday.
Many unknowns remain with the future of Brexit. Solh explained that while many businesses are hoping for a hard Brexit, “the people” are wanting a soft Brexit. In the scenario of a hard Brexit, the U.K. would no longer be a member of the EU and its borders would be closed, meaning passporting will no longer be allowed between the U.K. and neighboring countries. A soft Brexit could have different variations, with a possibility of the allowance of passporting to continue.
Even though companies might be holding out hope, they have to be responsible, Solh said. “Companies have to prepare for a hard Brexit if they want to continue to passport through the EU,” she said.
For fintechs interested in passporting, there are different considerations, including looking at taxes or privacy laws. Ireland and Luxembourg are two of the “known friendly tax jurisdictions,” Solh said. Ireland, for instance, has a 12.5 percent corporate income tax, whereas other EU countries sit in the 20 to 30 percent range.
Something else to keep in mind is that the country where payments companies gain licensure is where their data will be regulated, Solh pointed out. France, she said, “has been known as a difficult regulator,” with “stringent laws” and “intense oversight to make sure you're protecting your data.”
The Netherlands and Sweden are “where companies tend to place their servers,” Solh said, because their data protection regulation is more “flexible.”
Across the board in the payments space, Germany has been known to be among the tougher regulators, Solh warned. Even if a fintech applies for licensing elsewhere in a different country in Europe, Solh noted, there is a possibility German regulators could request additional information if the company plans to passport into the country.
“Be prepared,” Solh said. “They want to know more about you before they'll let you passport in.”
Contact Stephanie Forshee at [email protected].
With Brexit, will the right to gain licensure no longer be allowed between the U.K. and neighboring countries?
In the payments space, fintech companies have in the past enjoyed the protections of passporting, the right of companies to gain licensure in one European country and subsequently operate in any European Economic Area (EEA) country.
But with the vote that approved Brexit, companies are left in a “precarious position,” according to Crissy Solh, product and commercial counsel at Square. That's because more than one-third of the close to 13,500 companies that passport in the EEA first became licensed in the U.K., Solh explained during the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Monday.
Many unknowns remain with the future of Brexit. Solh explained that while many businesses are hoping for a hard Brexit, “the people” are wanting a soft Brexit. In the scenario of a hard Brexit, the U.K. would no longer be a member of the EU and its borders would be closed, meaning passporting will no longer be allowed between the U.K. and neighboring countries. A soft Brexit could have different variations, with a possibility of the allowance of passporting to continue.
Even though companies might be holding out hope, they have to be responsible, Solh said. “Companies have to prepare for a hard Brexit if they want to continue to passport through the EU,” she said.
For fintechs interested in passporting, there are different considerations, including looking at taxes or privacy laws. Ireland and Luxembourg are two of the “known friendly tax jurisdictions,” Solh said. Ireland, for instance, has a 12.5 percent corporate income tax, whereas other EU countries sit in the 20 to 30 percent range.
Something else to keep in mind is that the country where payments companies gain licensure is where their data will be regulated, Solh pointed out. France, she said, “has been known as a difficult regulator,” with “stringent laws” and “intense oversight to make sure you're protecting your data.”
The
Across the board in the payments space, Germany has been known to be among the tougher regulators, Solh warned. Even if a fintech applies for licensing elsewhere in a different country in Europe, Solh noted, there is a possibility German regulators could request additional information if the company plans to passport into the country.
“Be prepared,” Solh said. “They want to know more about you before they'll let you passport in.”
Contact Stephanie Forshee at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250