Nematerialiųjų vertybinių popierių laikymas ir perleidimas : kai kurie privatinės teisės aspektai

LTKad būtų apsaugotos nematerialiųjų vertybinių popierių savininkų teisės ir sukurta efektyviai veikianti rinka, būtina tinkamai reglamentuoti vertybinių popierių apyvartą. Šiame straipsnyje* nagrinėjami su nematerialiaisiais vertybiniais popieriais susiję privatinės teisės pasikeitimai. Atsisakius materialiųjų vertybinių popierių, rizikuojama prarasti daiktinių teisių teikiamą saugumą – nematerialiųjų vertybinių popierių savininko turtas nebegali būti fiziškai atskiriamas nuo ją saugančio finansų tarpininko turto. Kad būtų padidintas investuotojų pasitikėjimas finansų rinka ir apsaugoti jų interesai, šiuolaikinė teisė turi kaip įmanoma labiau užtikrinti, kad finansų institucijų klientų vertybiniai popieriai, net jeigu jie ir nėra materialūs, būtų išsaugoti ir tokiais atvejais, kai juos saugantis (jų apskaitą tvarkantis) finansų tarpininkas bankrutuoja. Straipsnyje taip pat aptariami nematerialiųjų vertybinių popierių įkeitimo ir perleidimo klausimai, įrašų vertybinių popierių sąskaitose teisinė reikšmė. Analizuojama Europos Sąjungos teisė, susijusi su nematerialiaisiais vertybiniais popieriais, šios teisės numatomi pasikeitimai, apžvelgiami kai kurie Lietuvos teisės aspektai, susiję su Europos Sąjungos teisės reformomis. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Vertybiniai popieriai; Nuosavybės teisė; Finansų institucija (tarpininkas); Atsiskaitymų sistema; Sandoris; Private law; Dematerialized securities; Book-entry securities.

ENAlthough in the law securities are most often considered as tangible objects (documents), the majority of securities, which are currently traded on national and international financial markets are book-entry securities, i.e. evidenced by the entries in securities accounts maintained by the investors with financial intermediaries. From the legal perspective, uncertainties arise as to what is the exact legal nature of such entries in securities accounts and what particular rights investors have towards the financial intermediaries holding such securities accounts. General legal rules governing the circulation of tangible securities (documents) cannot be directly applied to the holding and transfer of book-entry securities. The introduction of such securities requires a complete overhaul of the legal set-up for the holding and transfer of securities, which needs to take into account the specificities of the relationship between investors and their financial intermediaries. Certain analogy can be made between bank money and dematerialized securities. It is acknowledged that book-entry securities do not fall into the estate of financial intermediaries and can be separated from their property in the case of insolvency. However, both bank money and book-entry securities are evidenced by entries in accounts, they are intangible, account owners can instruct the intermediaries to transfer money or securities to other parties. It is therefore apparent that some of the legal rules applicable to the relationship between an investor and its financial intermediary in the case of book-entry securities could be the same as those governing the holding and transfer of bank money. Investors need to be protected in the case of insolvency of their financial intermediary. Hence it is important to ensure that creditors of such an intermediary cannot satisfy their claims from the property of investors.The law should ensure such protection. Also, the investors should be able to exercise their rights associated with book-entry securities, irrespective of the fact that there are no direct contractual relationships between the investors and the issuers of such securities. This article also argues that financial collateral arrangements, which are increasingly used by the market participants, should be governed by efficient and simple legal rules, thus ensuring that systemic risk is mitigated and that modern financial techniques are enforceable in accordance with their terms. The protection should be granted to pledge and similar security interest arrangements as well as transactions under which the ownership to securities is transferred to the other party for collateralization purposes. It is remarkable that no uniform solution exists at the moment regarding the crossborder transfers of book-entry securities. There are some initiatives to harmonize the diverging national laws (e.g. the proposed draft UNIDROIT convention on intermediated securities or the European Commission's Legal Certainty Project); however, the proposals do not embark on full harmonization. It is important to follow these initiatives and prepare to amend the national laws in order to ensure a smoothly functioning securities market and to protect the rights of investors. [From the publication]