31. Recognises the important role played by money market funds (MMFs) in the financing of financial institutions in the short run and in allowing for risk diversification; recognises the different role and structure of MMFs based in the EU and the US; recognises that the 2010 ESMA guidelines imposed stricter standards on MMFs (credit quality, maturity of underlying securities and better disclosure to investors); notes, however, that some MMFs, in particular those offering a stable net asset value to investors, are vulnerable to massive runs; stresses, therefore, that additional measures need to be taken to improve the resilience of these funds and to ...[+++]cover the liquidity risk; supports the October 2012 IOSCO final report in its proposed recommendations for the regulation and management of MMFs across jurisdictions; believes that MMFs that offer a stable net asset value (NAV) should be subject to measures designed to reduce the specific risks associated with their stable NAV feature and internalise the costs arising from these risks; considers that regulators should require, where workable, a conversion to floating/variable NAV, or, alternatively, safeguards should be introduced to reinforce stable NAV MMFs’ resilience and ability to face significant redemptions; invites the Commission to submit a review of the UCITS framework, with particular focus on the MMF issue, in the first half of 2013, by requiring MMFs either to adopt a variable asset value with a daily evaluation or, if retaining a constant value, to be obliged to apply for a limited-purpose banking licence and be subject to capital and other prudential requirements; stresses that regulatory arbitrage must be minimised;

31. Recognises the important role played by money market funds (MMFs) in the financing of financial institutions in the short run and in allowing for risk diversification; recognises the different role and structure of MMFs based in the EU and the US; recognises that the 2010 ESMA guidelines imposed stricter standards on MMFs (credit quality, maturity of underlying securities and better disclosure to investors); notes, however, that some MMFs, in particular those offering a stable net asset value to investors, are vulnerable to massive runs; stresses, therefore, that additional measures need to be taken to improve the resilience of these funds and to ...[+++]cover the liquidity risk; supports the October 2012 IOSCO final report in its proposed recommendations for the regulation and management of MMFs across jurisdictions; believes that MMFs that offer a stable net asset value (NAV) should be subject to measures designed to reduce the specific risks associated with their stable NAV feature and internalise the costs arising from these risks; considers that regulators should require, where workable, a conversion to floating/variable NAV, or, alternatively, safeguards should be introduced to reinforce stable NAV MMFs’ resilience and ability to face significant redemptions; invites the Commission to submit a review of the UCITS framework, with particular focus on the MMF issue, in the first half of 2013, by requiring MMFs either to adopt a variable asset value with a daily evaluation or, if retaining a constant value, to be obliged to apply for a limited-purpose banking licence and be subject to capital and other prudential requirements; stresses that regulatory arbitrage must be minimised;

Although for the year 2000 it could be accepted that the initial implementation of the ISPA projects would be severely restricted in extent, considerable concern should be generated in the second programming year by the fact that actual payments in respect of project implementation are modest indeed (barely EUR 25.3 million).

- three counts of receiving stolen goods: an association and political club with which they were connected (the association France Afrique Orient) allegedly received one of the offending payments; various flights were allegedly paid for: finally, the investigation provides grounds for suspicion that Mr PASQUA and Mr MARCHIANI may have received sums in cash.

2.1. A prudent business plan shall be submitted by the co-financiers or sponsors of the fund specifying, inter alia, the targeted market, the criteria, terms and conditions of financing, the operational budget of the fund, the ownership and co-financing partners, the professionalism, competence and independence of the management, the fund's by-laws, the justification and intended utilisation of the Structural Funds' contribution, the investment exit policy, and the winding-up provisions of the fund, including the reutilisation of retu ...[+++]rns attributable to the contribution from the Structural Funds.

The part-financers or sponsors of funds must submit a prudent business plan specifying, among other things, the targeted market, the appropriations, the terms and conditions of financing, the operational budget of the fund, the part-financing partners, the fund's by-laws, the independence of the management and the provisions for winding up the fund.