Adjunct Superintendent Resolution on Market Conduct Supervision No. 006-2025-SMV/11

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document in accordance with Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV
No. 006-2025-SMV/11
Lima, January 17, 2025
Summarizing: Sanctioning Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston S.A.A. with one (01) reprimand for having committed one (01) infringement of a minor nature, typified in subsection 3.2 of numeral 3 of letter A) of
Annex II of the Sanctions Regulation.
Administrated Entity: UNION DE CERVECERÍAS PERUANAS BACKUS Y JOHNSTON S.A.A.
Subject: Administrative Sanctioning Procedure of double administrative instance Main Type:
Subsection 3.2 of numeral 3 of letter A) of Annex II of the Sanctions Regulation MINOR INFRACTION File No.: 2024036470 The Adjunct Superintendent of Market Conduct Supervision SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2024036470, containing the administrative sanctioning procedure initiated by the General Intendency of Conduct Compliance of the Securities Market Superintendence – SMV (hereinafter, the IGCC), against Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston S.A.A. (hereinafter, the Issuer); as well as Report No. 1472-2024-SMV/11.2 (hereinafter, the Report), issued by the IGCC; CONSIDERING:
I. FUNCTION AND COMPETENCE OF THE SASCM

1. That, the IGCC —instructor body of the
   administrative sanctioning procedures (hereinafter, the PAS) referred to in the case at hand—, has brought to the knowledge of the Adjunct Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision of the SMV (hereinafter, SASCM), the PAS of administrative file No. 2024036470 with the aim that it issues a decision as the first-instance administrative sanctioning body in said PAS. In this way, the SASCM assumes competence in observance of the exercise of the supervision function and of the sanctioning faculty of the SMV established through the Unified Concorded Text of its Organic Law, Legislative Decree No. 26126 (hereinafter, Organic Law of the SMV), and in the Unified Ordained Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF (hereinafter, TUO of the LMV); as well as by what is provided in the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035- 2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, Sanctions Regulation) and in articles 42 and 43 of the Regulation on Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF (hereinafter, ROF of the SMV), in the sense that it is a specific function of the SASCM, to impose sanctions in first-instance administrative proceedings, for the commission of infractions whose compliance control according to its competencies corresponds to said Adjunct Superintendence. Likewise, the SASCM has the faculties to issue corrective measures aimed at reversing the situation altered by the commission of the infraction;
2. That, the current PAS corresponds to two (2)
   administrative instances in accordance with article 15 of the Sanctions Regulation, and to what is established in numeral 26 of article 12 of the ROF-SMV, which establish that the Superintendent of the Securities Market resolves appeals against resolutions issued in the first instance by the Adjunct Superintendent of the SASCM, with the exception of single-instance procedures;
   II. FACTS, CHARGES, DEFENSES, AND ARGUMENTS
   2.1 Fact
3. That, it was evaluated whether the Issuer complied with its obligation
   to have at all times at least one titular stock representative and one alternate;
   2.2 Charge
4. That, according to preliminary inquiries communicated by the General Intendency of Conduct Supervision (hereinafter,
   IGSC), and after the verifications carried out by the IGCC on the information that is published on the Institutional Website of the SMV on the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State for Citizen Orientation (hereinafter, Institutional Website of the SMV) , it was noted that to date the Issuer had not designated at least one (01) alternate stock representative, as can be seen below in Image No. 1:
   Image No. 1: Information on Stock Representatives of the Issuer - Institutional Website of the SMV

1 www.gob.pe/smv

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document in accordance with Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
5. That, in the same way, from the review of the
Integrated Registration and Supervision System (SIRyS) of the SMV, in the section on stock representatives corresponding to the Issuer, the same data are verified, as appreciated in the following images:
Image No. 2: Information on Stock Representatives of the Issuer - SIRyS
6. That, as mentioned, the IGCC requested comments from the
Issuer regarding the reasons why it does not have an alternate stock representative; however, no response has been given to such request, so that to date it is observed that the Issuer only has two (02) titular stock representatives, when it should also have designated at least one (01) alternate stock representative, in accordance with what is established in the norms of the SMV;
2.3 Defenses and Arguments
7. That, the Issuer has not presented its defenses despite
having been validly notified with the Charge Office;
8. That, regarding this matter, it is appropriate to indicate that the
Issuer was validly notified with the Charge Office on September 10, 2024 via the MVNet System, as verified from the receipt acknowledgment that appears in the log of the MVNet System, in application of what is provided in article 37² of the Regulation of the MVNet System and SMV Virtual, approved by SMV Resolution No. 004-2024-SMV/01 (hereinafter, MVNet Regulation), which states that notification takes legal effect at the time it is recorded as having been received by the Issuer, according to the date and time registered in the self-generated Receipt Acknowledgment Certificate of the SMV Virtual;
9. That, without prejudice to the above, on September 13, 2024,
additionally, personal notification was proceeded via physical notification, of the Charge Office. However, to date the Issuer has not sent defenses to the imputed infringement;
10. That, the TUO of the LPAG contains common norms
for the actions of the administrative function of the State and regulates all administrative procedures developed in the entities, including special procedures. Likewise, numeral 3) of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG, signals the criteria regarding the graduation of the sanction: (a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, (b) The probability of detection of the infraction, (c) The seriousness of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, (d) The economic harm caused, (e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within the term of one (1) year from when the resolution sanctioning the first infraction became final, (f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and, (g) The existence or non-existence of intent in the conduct of the offender;
11. That, the charge formulated and the criteria regarding the
graduation of the sanction have been the subject of evaluation in the Report, which has been brought to the knowledge of the SASCM;
12. That, in observance of what is provided by numeral 5
of article 255 of the TUO of the LPAG, via Office No. 5121-2024-SMV/11 of November 11, 2024, the Report was sent to the Issuer so that it could formulate its arguments within the term of five (05) business days. It should be specified that the referred office was validly notified on November 14, 2024 via the MVNet System, as verified from the receipt acknowledgment that appears in the log of the MVNet System; likewise, the

2 Article 37.- Moment and Efficacy of Notifications “37.1 The Electronic Notification procedure begins by the SMV with the deposit of the administrative act or administrative action in the Electronic Mailbox of Users of SMV Virtual. The SMV Virtual automatically generates the Electronic Notification Certificate. Likewise, the SMV communicates to the email address and cell phone of Users of SMV Virtual, the data of the validly made notification.
37.2 Users of SMV Virtual must carry out the confirmation of receipt via the Receipt Acknowledgment Certificate during the first five (05) business days following the validly made notification. The Electronic Notification takes legal effect at the time it is recorded as having been received by the User of SMV Virtual, according to the date and time registered in the self-generated Receipt Acknowledgment Certificate of the SMV Virtual.
37.3 However, if the User of SMV Virtual does not access the message deposited in their Electronic Mailbox within a term of five (05) business days from the Electronic Notification being made, it takes legal effect from the next business day after the expiration of this term.
37.4 Exceptionally, as determined by the organs or organizational units of the SMV, acts or administrative actions can be notified in cases where greater speed is required in the processing of the notification, via personal notification, in addition to notification via electronic mailbox. In these cases, the notification that first becomes effective will prevail, according to law.”
(Underline added)

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document in accordance with Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
November 15, 2024, additionally, personal notification was proceeded via physical means. However, to date the Issuer has not presented arguments to the Report;
III. MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED
13. That, in the current PAS it is necessary to determine the following:
(i) Whether the Issuer incurred or did not incur the infraction indicated in the Charge Office and Report; (ii) Whether it is appropriate or not to impose a sanction on the Issuer.
IV. ANALYSIS
4.1 Applicable Normativity
14. That, article 13 of the TUO of the LMV establishes that:
“(…) Legal persons registered in the Registry and issuers of securities registered are obligated to present the information that this law and other general character provisions establish, being responsible for the truthfulness of said information.”
15. That, regarding the obligation to have at all times
at least one titular stock representative and one alternate, numeral 20.2 of article 20 of the Regulation on Material Facts and Confidential Information, approved by SMV Resolution No. 005-2014-SMV/01 (hereinafter, Regulation on Material Facts), provides:
“20.2. The Issuer must have at all times at least one titular stock representative and at least one alternate. The Issuer is responsible for the acts of its stock representatives in the exercise of their functions as such.”;
16. That, for its part, numeral 21.1 of article 21 of the
Regulation on Material Facts, establishes that the Board of Directors is the social body responsible for designating the stock representatives;
17. That, regarding the infringing type, it must be stated that
according to what is provided in numeral 3.2 of article 3 of Annex II of the Sanctions Regulation, it constitutes a minor infraction:
“Not having a titular stock representative and an alternate, or designating or maintaining persons who do not meet the requirements and conditions established in the regulation of the matter to exercise the function of stock representative.” (Underline added);
18. That, according to what is provided in article 35 of the
Sanctions Regulation, minor infractions are sanctionable with a reprimand or fine not less than one (1) UIT and up to twenty-five (25) UIT;
4.2 Evaluation of the Case
19. That, file No. 2024036470 which contains the
documentation of the current PAS, it is appreciated that via Memorandum No. 298-2024- SMV/11.1 of January 19, 2024 (File No. 2024002382), the IGSC —organ of the SMV that has within its functions and faculties, the supervision of compliance with the norms applicable to issuers with securities registered in the RPMV—, sent to the IGCC, the result of its evaluation, and specifically what refers to the present case;
20. That, it must be kept in mind that the procedures and
legal forms with which the IGSC conducts its auditing and/or supervision activity and upon concluding it with a report of indications of infraction, determine that its pronouncement or opinion on a specific topic of supervision —which may even contain a decision, such as, for example, the adoption of corrective measures—, is an opinion on the merits of the matter; it must be specified that said opinion and the report of indications of infraction of the IGSC is not binding for the IGCC, as established in the second paragraph of article 9 of the Sanctions Regulation³⁴;
21. That, in this way it is had that in the evaluation of
facts related to the current PAS have intervened and participated previously to the issuance of the present resolution, two (02) other organs of the SMV, functionally independent from each other and from this Office; first the IGSC that at its opportunity reported the indications of infraction via the memorandum mentioned above and then the IGCC that, as a result of its evaluation, formulated the Charge Office and the Report; and at this point of the PAS it corresponds to the Office of the SASCM, to issue pronouncement containing its decision regarding the mentioned charge, being precise to indicate that by the nature of the same, it will be a decision of first-instance administrative;
22. That, previously, it must be stated that the Issuer
has not presented its defenses regarding the imputations formulated against it in the present file;
23. That, the Issuer also did not send the arguments
corresponding to the Report, despite being validly notified, as has been indicated previously;
24. That, as mentioned, via
Memorandum No. 298-2024-SMV/11.1 of January 19, 2024, the IGCC took knowledge of the indication subject of analysis in the current PAS and at the date of imputation of charge, it was verified that the Issuer only had two (02) titular stock representatives omitting its obligation to designate also at least one alternate stock representative in accordance with what is established in the norms of the SMV;
25. That, likewise, it is observed that the Issuer to date,
still has not fulfilled correcting the imputed infraction, since from the review of the Institutional Website of the SMV and the SIRyS, it is verified that the Issuer still has not designated an alternate stock representative, despite having taken knowledge of the infringing fact through Office No. 1319-2024-SMV/11.2 of April 09, 2024 (File No.
2024002382) via which it was requested to send its comments; as well as, through
the Charge Office via which it was requested to send its respective defenses;
26. That, in the same way, it is worth remembering that the
numeral 21.1 of article 21 of the Regulation on Material Facts, establishes that the Board of Directors is the social body responsible for designating the stock representatives.
Being so, from the review of the Institutional Website of the SMV it is verified that the Issuer has a Board of Directors, so there was no impediment for it to comply with its regulatory obligations and designate an alternate stock representative; however, to date the Issuer still has not done so;
27. That, consequently, having accredited the
conduct constitutive of infraction and determined the administrative responsibility of the Issuer, it is appropriate to analyze the proposal of sanction in attention to what is provided by the principle of reasonableness and to the sanction criteria, which will be evaluated in the section of determination of the sanction;
V. DETERMINATION OF THE SANCTION
28. That, having determined the existence of
administrative responsibility on the part of the Issuer, for the commission of one (01) infraction typified in subsection 3.2 of numeral 3 of letter A) of Annex II of the Sanctions Regulation, which states that it constitutes a minor infraction: “Not having a titular stock representative and an alternate, or designating or maintaining persons who do not meet the requirements and conditions established in the regulation of the matter to exercise the function of stock representative.” (Underline added);
29. That, according to article 35 of the
Sanctions Regulation, said infraction is sanctionable with reprimand or fine not less than one (01) UIT and up to twenty-five (25) UIT;
30. That, in that sense, it is appropriate to determine the
sanction to be imposed on the Issuer considering the sanction criteria established in article 344 of the TUO of the LMV, numeral 3) of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG and what is provided by article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation, which develop the criteria for graduation of sanction, being these: (i) the sanction antecedents of the issuer, (ii) recidivism, (iii) the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, (iv) the economic harm caused and its repercussion in the market, (v) the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, (vi) the probability of detection of the infraction, (vii) the seriousness of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good and (viii) the existence or non- existence of intent in the conduct of the offender (hereinafter, Sanction Criteria);
31. That, regarding the sanction antecedents, the
letter a) of article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation establishes that they are the firm sanctions imposed by the SMV within the term of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned (in the present case, January 19, 2024); without prejudice to this, it is made the precision that it is not considered as an antecedent, the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned. On this particular, from the verification carried out in the Sanctions System of the SMV, it has been determined that the Issuer has sanction antecedents, as detailed in the Report;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

32. That, regarding the offender's recidivism, paragraph b) of Article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation establishes that any final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. In this regard, it has been verified that there is no recidivism on the part of the Issuer;

33. That, regarding the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, it has been verified that the Issuer only has two (02) principal stock representatives, when it should also have designated at least one (01) substitute stock representative, in accordance with the provisions of the SMV regulations. It should be noted that, to date, the Issuer has not complied with correcting the imputed infraction.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is worth recalling that according to what is provided in Article 22 of the Material Facts Regulation, the functions of the principal stock representative are to communicate to the SMV material facts and reserved information of the Issuer, verifying that the documentation through which they are informed comply with the formal and content requirements established in the regulation; as well as to attend to information requests or inquiries made by the SMV, the Stock Exchange, or the entity administering the centralized trading mechanisms.

While regarding the substitute stock representative, paragraph 23.1 of Article 23 of the Material Facts Regulation provides that this person will be the immediate replacement of the principal stock representative in case the latter is absent or has any impossibility of exercising the position.

In this sense, in the present case, it has been verified that the Issuer has two designated principal stock representatives (Pizarro Madrid Carlos Raul and Schanks Garcia Geraldine Abigail) in charge of sending information about the Issuer to the SMV in accordance with the provisions of the SMV regulations; however, it must be kept in mind the obligation established by the Material Facts Regulation that orders the Issuer to have at all times at least one principal stock representative and one substitute.

It should be clarified that, without prejudice to the fact that the Issuer has failed to comply with the obligation to designate a substitute stock representative, it is also verified that for practical purposes the Issuer has two (2) designated principal stock representatives, each of whom independently can supplement the other in the exercise of their functions;

34. That, regarding the economic damage and its repercussion on the market, it has not been evidenced that the non-compliance has produced a quantifiable damage, understood as an economic damage caused to one or more investors;

35. That, regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, regarding the illegally obtained benefit, in the present case, there are not sufficient elements to indicate that the Issuer obtained an illegal benefit as a consequence of the commission of the infractions under evaluation;

36. That, regarding the probability of detection of the infraction committed, it must be noted that the probability is high, due to the fact that this type of non-compliance is corroborated by the SMV itself through periodic control actions;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

37. That, regarding the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, that the Issuer has at least one principal stock representative and one substitute is indispensable to comply with its obligations on the submission of information to the market, in this way strengthening the transparency of the securities market, which constitutes the protected legal interest, in this way market participants can make their investment decisions adequately informed, so its non-compliance represents an affectation to the transparency of the securities market;

38. That, regarding the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender, it can be noted that there are not sufficient elements to indicate that the Issuer acted with intent in the commission of the infractions, so this criterion would not have been configured. However, it is necessary to indicate that despite there being no indications to suggest that the Issuer acted with intent, it can be affirmed that the Issuer's conduct was negligent, by not acting with diligence regarding obligations already known by the Issuer;

39. That, in that sense, in application of the Sanction Criteria previously developed, it is observed that the infraction committed has not caused concrete damage to investors, the Issuer has not obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct, nor has it been proven that it acted with intent and it is not a recidivist. However, the Issuer has six (06) sanction records according to what is detailed in the Report. Likewise, it must be taken into account that the Issuer to date has not yet complied with correcting the infraction subject of imputation in the present case;

40. That, this Adjunct Superintendence, although it agrees with the evaluation and the determination of the non-compliance contained in the Report regarding the proposal for sanction, considers that in accordance with the principle of reasonableness 5 established in paragraph 1.4 of Article IV of the Preliminary Title of the TUO of the LPAG, it corresponds to impose as a sanction not a fine but a (01) reprimand, in accordance with the evaluation carried out in the Sanction Criteria and taking into account that a corrective measure is going to be imposed on the Issuer;

41. That, considering what has been exposed previously, a fine must be imposed on the Issuer for the non-compliance committed, according to the Sanction Criteria analyzed in this Resolution, as well as the evaluation carried out by this Adjunct Superintendence, it corresponds to impose on the Issuer as a sanction a (01) reprimand, in accordance with Article 35 of the Sanctions Regulation;

VI. APPLICATION OF CORRECTIVE MEASURE

42. That, having determined in the present PAS that the Issuer has affected the transparency of the information of the securities market and the

“Article IV. Principles of the administrative procedure

1. The administrative procedure is fundamentally based on the following principles, without prejudice to the validity of other general principles of Administrative Law:
   (…)
   “1.4. Principle of reasonableness.- The decisions of the administrative authority, when they create obligations, qualify infractions, impose sanctions, or establish restrictions on the regulated parties, must adapt within the limits of the attributed faculty and maintaining the due proportion between the means to be employed and the public ends that must be protected, in order to respond to what is strictly necessary for the satisfaction of their purpose. (…)”.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

protection of investors thereof, it is necessary to dictate administrative measures, in addition to the imposition of a sanction for the determined infraction. This additional measure must have the purpose of correcting, repairing or trying to repair the altered situation;

43. That, in accordance with Article 1 of both the LOSMV and the LMV, it is the purpose and duty of the SMV “to ensure the adequate protection of investors”. Thus, Article 1 of the LOSMV provides:
    “Article 1. Definition, purpose and functions of the Securities Market Superintendence (SMV) The Securities Market Superintendence (SMV) is a specialized technical body attached to the Ministry of Economy and Finance whose purpose is to ensure the protection of investors, the efficiency and transparency of the markets under its supervision, the correct formation of prices and the dissemination of all information necessary for such purposes, through regulation, supervision and promotion. It has legal personality of internal public law and enjoys functional, administrative, economic, technical and budgetary autonomy, constituting a budgetary item. Its operation is governed by the provisions contained in this Law and its regulation of organization and functions. The functions of the Securities Market Superintendence (SMV) are the following: (…)” (Underlining and emphasis added);

44. That, in Article 1 of the LMV it is established:
    “Article 1.- Purpose and Scope of the Law.- The purpose of this law is to promote the orderly development and transparency of the securities market, as well as the adequate protection of the investor.
    (…)”;

45. That, regarding the function and responsibility of the SMV, it is necessary to take into account that Article 7 of the LMV provides:
    “Article 7.- Control and Supervision.
    The Securities Market Superintendence (SMV) is the public institution in charge of the supervision and control of compliance with this law. (…)” (Underlining and emphasis added);

46. That, regarding the faculty of the SMV to dictate corrective measures, what is provided in Article 352 of the LMV is had:
    “Article 352.- Precautionary, provisional and corrective measures The SMV is empowered to dictate precautionary, provisional and corrective measures regarding natural or legal persons under its competence, regardless of whether a sanctioning procedure has been initiated or not. (…)” (Underlining and emphasis added);

47. That, likewise, regarding the competence or faculty of the SASCM to dictate corrective measures, paragraphs 12 and 13 of Article 43 of the ROF-SMV are established:
    “ARTICLE 43°.- Specific functions of the Adjunct Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision:

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

(…)
12. Dictate, modify or revoke, precautionary, corrective and/or provisional measures, ex officio or at the request of a party, in the cases submitted to its knowledge; (…)”. (Underlining and emphasis added);
13. In the scope of its competence, impose sanctions in the first administrative instance for the commission of infractions whose compliance control corresponds to the Adjunct Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision, with the exception of infractions to the norms on the opportunity in the presentation of periodic or eventual information. The respective sanction resolution may dispose the application of corrective measures aimed at reversing the situation altered by the commission of the infraction; (…)” (Underlining and emphasis added);

48. That, regarding the definition or scope of corrective measures, what is established in Article 19 of the Sanctions Regulation is had:
    “Article 19.- DEFINITION.- Corrective measures are those mandates oriented to restore, reverse, repair, or restore that situation altered by the non-compliance of the regulations under the supervision of the SMV. These measures can be dictated prior to the start of an administrative sanctioning procedure or at the moment of the determination of administrative responsibility. Corrective measures may consist of obligations to give, do and not do, and must establish in a precise and indubitable manner the task assigned to the regulated party, identifying those obliged to comply with them. Corrective measures must be dictated through a duly motivated decision and observing the principles of Proportionality and Reasonableness.” (Underlining and emphasis added);

49. That, in the same way, regarding corrective measures, it is necessary to refer to what is provided in Article 251 of the TUO of the LPAG:
    “Article 251. -Determination of responsibility
    251.1 The administrative sanctions imposed on the regulated party are compatible with the dictation of corrective measures conducive to ordering the restoration or repair of the situation altered by the infraction to its previous state, including that of the affected goods, as well as with the indemnification for damages and losses caused, which are determined in the corresponding judicial process. Corrective measures must be previously typified, be reasonable and adjust to the intensity, proportionality and needs of the legal goods protected that are intended to guarantee in each concrete case.
    (…)” (Underlining and emphasis added).

50. That, regarding the typification of corrective measures in Annex XX of the Sanctions Regulation it is established:
    “ANNEX XX
    On Corrective Measures
    In accordance with what is established in Article 21 of the Regulation, the SMV, when determining administrative responsibility, may dictate the following corrective measures:
    (…)”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

27) Other measures that relate directly to the compliance with the infringed norms.
(…)” (Underlining and emphasis added);

51. That, in that sense, on the basis of what is exposed in this Resolution, and in observance of the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, it must comply with the purpose of the SMV and of the LMV to ensure the adequate protection of investors and the transparency of the market it corresponds to dictate the corrective measure consisting of ordering the Issuer to comply with designating at least one substitute stock representative within a period of thirty (30) business days counted from the day following the notification of the sanction resolution;

52. That, the IGSC, being the body of the SMV that has the function of supervising material facts and other information that Issuers must disseminate in the securities market, in accordance with what is indicated in Article 45 and paragraphs 17 and 43 of Article 46 of the ROF-SMV, is who must verify the compliance of what is ordered to the Issuer, and;

Being in accordance with what is disposed in paragraphs 12, 13 and 36 of Article 43 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF;

RESOLVES:

Article 1º.- Declare that Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston S.A.A. has incurred a (1) infraction of a minor nature, typified in paragraph 3.2 of paragraph 3 of literal A) of Annex II of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with its obligation to have at all times at least one substitute stock representative in accordance with the provisions of the SMV regulations.

Article 2º.- Sanction Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston S.A.A. with a (01) reprimand, for what is provided in Article 1° of this Resolution.

Article 3º.- Dictate as a corrective measure that Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston S.A.A., in accordance with Article 21 and paragraph 27 of Annex XX “On Corrective Measures” of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, comply with designating at least one substitute stock representative within a period of thirty (30) business days counted from the day following the notification of this Resolution.

Article 4º.- Dispose that the General Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision of the SMV verify the compliance of the corrective measure established in Article 3° of this Resolution, in accordance with what is indicated in the considerations thereof, and that in accordance with the exercise of its competencies and taking into account the applicable regulatory framework, inform the competent body of the SMV, on the compliance of the dictated corrective measure.

Article 5º.- This Resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, this being able to be challenged before this Adjunct Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision through the filing of the reconsideration or appeal resource, administrative resources recognized in Article 218 of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law – Law No.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS, within a period of fifteen (15) business days, counted from the day following its notification.

Article 6º.- In case that this Resolution is not subject to challenge, it must be published on the “SMV Institutional Page on the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State for Citizen Orientation (www.gob.pe/smv)”, in observance of what is provided by paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Policy on dissemination of normative projects, norms of general character, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV”, approved by SMV Resolution No. 014-2014-SMV/01, and by what is provided in the last paragraph of Article 14 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 7º.- Transcribe this Resolution to Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston S.A.A.

Register, communicate and publish,

Carlos Rivero Zevallos
Adjunct Superintendent
Adjunct Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision