PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance
SMV
Superintendency of the Securities
Market

"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of the Bicentennial, of the consolidation of our Independence, and of the commemoration of the heroic battles of Junín and Ayacucho"

Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV

No. 014-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 25 March 2024

Summary: Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST is sanctioned with nine (09) reprimands and a fine of 8.10 UIT, equivalent to S/ 37,260.00 (Thirty-seven thousand two hundred sixty and 00/100 Soles), for having incurred thirteen (13) minor infractions typified in Annex I, item 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, for failing to submit event-driven information within the period established by the applicable regulations.

It is also declared that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST is not subject to sanction for one (01) minor infraction, typified in Annex I, item 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations; consequently, the administrative sanctioning procedure is concluded in this regard.

Regulated entity
:
Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST Subject :
Administrative sanctioning procedure
Case File No.:
2023049792

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

REVIEWED:

Administrative Case File No. 2023049792, and Report No. 223-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Directorate of Prudential Compliance; as well as the defenses and arguments submitted by Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST; and,

CONSIDERING:

1. Pursuant to Article 1 of Law No. 29782, Law on Strengthening the Supervision of the Securities Market, the name National Commission for the Supervision of Companies and Securities (CONASEV) is replaced by that of the Superintendency of the Securities Market (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal provisions shall be understood as a reference to the SMV;

I. FACTS

2. Within the supervision functions assigned to the SMV, an evaluation was carried out of the timely submission of event-driven and periodic information by Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST (hereinafter, INTERTÍTULOS ST) to the Public Registry of the Securities Market (hereinafter, RPMV);

3. As a result of said evaluation and pursuant to the provisions of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), through Official Letter No. 5472-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 29 November 2023 (hereinafter, OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES), charges were filed against INTERTÍTULOS ST for infractions of the Securities Market Law, approved by Legislative Decree No. 861 (hereinafter, LMV), the Regulation on Asset Securitization Processes approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 001-97-EF/94.10 and its amending provisions (hereinafter, REGULATION), the Regulation on Material Events and Confidential Information, approved by SMV Resolution No. 005-2014 and its amending provisions (hereinafter, RHI), and the "Standards on the preparation and presentation of Financial Statements and the Annual Report by entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market", approved by SMV Resolution No. 016-2015-SMV/01 (hereinafter, STANDARDS), for failing to timely submit the following:

a) The material event referred to the agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of INTERTÍTULOS ST in the session held on 31 January 2020. Said material event should have been reported on 31 January 2020; however, it was reported on 3 February 20201.

b) The material event referred to the risk rating report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the "First Issue of the First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools" with financial information as of 31 December 2019. Said event should have been reported to the RPMV on 1 June 20202; however, it was reported on 2 June 20203.

c) The material event referred to the agreements adopted by the Mandatory Annual Shareholders' Meeting of INTERTÍTULOS ST held on 9 June 2020. Said material event should have been reported on 9 June 2020; however, it was reported on 10 June 20204.

d) The material event referred to the agreements adopted in the Assembly of holders of the securitization bonds issued under the "Trust Estate D.

[1] Case File No. 2020003818.

[2] With Case File No. 2020018480 dated 1 June 2020, the rating agency sent the said rating report to the SMV. Pursuant to Article 32, item 32.3 of the Regulation on Rating Agencies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 032-2015-SMV-01, it is considered that the rating agency sent the report to the SMV and the issuer on the date of the session, 01 June 2020, and published it on its website.

[3] Case File No. 2020018517. Subsequently, INTERTÍTULOS ST submitted the modified version of the risk rating report through Case File No. 2020018712. According to the information provided by the Rating Agency in the letter of 2 June 2020 (Case File No. 202018624), it made minor changes requested by its client, which do not affect the rating category granted.

[4] Case File No. 2020019561.

Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools" held on 21 August 2020. Said material event should have been reported on 21 August 2020; however, it was reported on 24 August 20205.

e) The individual interim financial statements of INTERTÍTULOS ST corresponding to the third quarter of the 2020 fiscal year, approved on 2 November 2020 and submitted on 3 November 20206. Notwithstanding, according to the applicable regulations, INTERTÍTULOS ST should have submitted said information on the day of its approval.

f) The management report of INTERTÍTULOS ST corresponding to the third quarter of the 2020 fiscal year, approved on 2 November 2020 and submitted on 3 November 20207. Notwithstanding, according to the applicable regulations, INTERTÍTULOS ST should have submitted said information on the day of its approval.

g) The individual interim financial statements of the “Patrimonio en Fideicomiso D. Leg. N° 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Peruvian Schools” corresponding to the third quarter of the 2020 fiscal year, approved on 2 November 2020 and submitted on 3 November 20208. Notwithstanding, according to the applicable regulations, INTERTÍTULOS ST should have submitted said information on the day of its approval.

h) The material event referring to the annual validation report carried out by Sustainalytics regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools”, issued on 10 August 2021. Said event should have been communicated to the RPMV on 10 August 2021; however, it was reported on 11 August 20219.

i) The material event referring to the risk rating report carried out by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools” with financial information as of 30 September 2021. Said event should have been communicated to the RPMV on 17 November 202110; however, it was reported on 18 November 202111.

j) The material event referring to the call to the Assembly of the bondholders of the “Patrimonio en Fideicomiso D. Leg. N° 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Peruvian Schools”, with a call agreement dated 12 January 2022. Said event should have been communicated on 12 January 2022; however, it was communicated on 20 January 202212.

k) The material event referring to the resolutions adopted at the Assembly of the bondholders of the “Patrimonio en Fideicomiso D. Leg. N° 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Peruvian Schools”, held on 18

[5] File No. 2020029858.

[6] File No. 2020039761.

[7] File No. 2020039761.

[8] File No. 2020039764.

[9] File No. 2021031163.

[10] With File No. 2021043926 of 17 November 2021, the rating agency submitted the said rating report to the SMV. Pursuant to Article 32°, item 32.3 of the Regulation for Risk Rating Agencies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 032-2015-SMV-01, it is considered that the rating agency submitted the report to the SMV and the issuer on the date of the session, 17 November 2021, and published it on its website.

[11] File No. 2021043975.

[12] File No. 2022002252.

January 2022. Said material event should have been communicated on 18 January 2022; however, it was communicated on 20 January 202213.

l) The material fact regarding the call to the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Patrimonio en Fideicomiso D. Leg. N° 861, Título XI – Primer Programa de Bonos de Titulización Colegios Peruanos”, with call agreement dated 2 March 2022. Said fact should have been communicated on 2 March 2022; however, it was communicated on 8 March 202214 .

m) The material fact regarding the risk classification report carried out by the Clasificadora de Riesgo Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., with respect to the securities corresponding to the “Primer Programa de Bonos de Titulización de Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 31 March 2022. Said fact should have been communicated to the RPMV on 21 July 202215, however, it was reported on 19 October 202216 .

n) The material fact regarding the risk classification report carried out by Clasificadora de Riesgo Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., with respect to the securities corresponding to the “Primer Programa de Bonos de Titulización de Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 30 September 2022. Said fact should have been communicated to the RPMV on 18 November 202217, however, it was reported on 27 January 202318 .

4. The breaches mentioned in the preceding recital are typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), according to which it constitutes an infraction “To submit outside the established term, or to do so incompletely, or, without observing the technical specifications approved by the SMV or without communicating the approval by the corresponding corporate body, to the SMV, to the Exchange, to the entity in charge of the centralized negotiation mechanism or to any other entity or subject of the securities market, the audited individual or consolidated financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, material facts and annual reports”;

5. By writing received on 18 December 2023, INTERTÍTULOS ST presented the discharges to the observations made;

6. The charges formulated, as well as the discharges presented by INTERTÍTULOS ST have been subject to evaluation by the Intendencia General de Cumplimiento Prudencial in Report N° 223-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Superintendencia Adjunta;

[13] File N° 2022002250.

[14] File N° 2022009706.

[15] With file N° 2022030211 of 21 July 2022 the rating company submitted the indicated classification report to the SMV. Pursuant to article 32°, numeral 32.3 of the Regulation of Risk Rating Companies, approved by SMV Resolution Nº 032-2015-SMV-01, it is considered that the rating company submitted on the date of the session 21 July 2022, the report to the SMV and to the issuer, and published it on its website.

[16] File No. 2022041864.

[17] With File No. 2022046717 dated 18 November 2022, the rating agency sent the indicated rating report to the SMV. In accordance with Article 32, paragraph 32.3 of the Regulation of Risk Rating Agencies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 032-2015-SMV-01, it is considered that the rating agency sent the report to the SMV and to the issuer on the date of the session of 18 November 2022, and published it on its website.

[18] File No. 2023003976.

7. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1.2 of the Preliminary Title, as well as in Article 248, paragraph 2, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, through Official Letter No. 688-2024-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to INTERTÍTULOS ST for its review;

8. On 29 February 2024, the securitization company submitted additional written arguments;

II. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

9. In this administrative proceeding, in the opinion of this Deputy Superintendency, it is appropriate to determine the following:

a. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of INTERTÍTULOS ST in the session held on 31 January 2020, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

b. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the risk rating report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Issue of the First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 31 December 2019, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

c. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the agreements adopted by the Annual Mandatory Shareholders' Meeting of INTERTÍTULOS ST held on 9 June 2020, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

d. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the agreements adopted in the Assembly of the holders of the securitization bonds issued under the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Colegios Peruanos” held on 21 August 2020, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

e. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the individual interim financial statements of INTERTÍTULOS ST corresponding to the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, approved on 2 November 2020, within the term established in Article 5 of the NORMS;

f. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the management report of INTERTÍTULOS ST corresponding to the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, approved on 2 November 2020, within the term established in Article 5 of the NORMS;

g. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the individual interim financial statements of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Colegios Peruanos” corresponding to the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, approved on 2 November 2020, within the term established in Article 5 of the NORMS;

h. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the annual validation report prepared by Sustainalytics regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos”, issued on 10 August 2021, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

i. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the risk rating report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 30 September 2021, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

j. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the call to the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Colegios Peruanos”, with call agreement dated 12 January 2022, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

k. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the agreements adopted in the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Colegios Peruanos”, held on 18 January 2022, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

l. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the call to the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Colegios Peruanos”, with call agreement dated 2 March 2022, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

m. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having submitted the material fact referring to the risk rating report prepared by the Risk Rating Agency Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 31 March 2022, within the term established in Article 9, paragraph 9.1 of the RHI;

n. Whether INTERTÍTULOS ST incurred or not in an infraction by not having presented the material fact referring to the risk classification report prepared by Clasificadora de Riesgo Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 30 September 2022, within the term established in article 9, numeral 9.1 of the RHI;

o. Whether or not it is appropriate to impose sanctions on INTERTÍTULOS ST;

III. ANALYSIS

3.1 Of the Applicable Regulations

10. In this regard, the LMV establishes the following:

“Article 28.- Material Facts The registration of a given security or issuance program entails for its issuer the obligation to inform CONASEV and, where applicable, the respective stock exchange or entity responsible for the operation of the centralized mechanism, of material facts, including ongoing negotiations, about itself, the security and the offer made thereof, as well as to disclose such facts in a truthful, sufficient and timely manner. The information must be provided to said institutions and disclosed as soon as the fact occurs or the issuer becomes aware of it, as the case may be.

The materiality of a fact is measured by the influence it may exert on a prudent investor to modify their decision to invest or not in the security”19 .

11. On this matter, article 24 of the RHI establishes the following:

“Article 24.- General Aspects

The provisions of this Regulation apply to management companies insofar as they do not conflict with the provisions of this Title and the specific rules that govern them.

Management Companies are obliged to communicate material facts regarding themselves, as well as the autonomous estates under their administration or fiduciary ownership, provided that, in accordance with articles 3 and 4 of this Regulation, they may generate significant influence regarding the publicly offered securities issued by the autonomous estates they administer or whose fiduciary ownership they exercise.

Material facts must be reported in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation and the specific rules that govern them. In all cases, the term to communicate the aforementioned material facts is that established in article 9 of this Regulation”.

12. Likewise, in relation to material facts, article 5 of the RHI provides the following:

“Article 5.- Information that by its nature may qualify as a material fact

5.1. The Annex that forms part of this Regulation includes an illustrative list of facts, acts, agreements and decisions, whose purpose is to facilitate the Issuer's identification, qualification and classification of information that could qualify as a material fact.

5.2. The assumptions in the Annex must be communicated as material facts when they have the capacity to significantly influence as defined in articles 3 and 4. If any act, decision, agreement, fact or ongoing negotiation does not appear in said Annex, it does not necessarily imply that it does not qualify as a material fact, and must be communicated as such if it complies with the provisions of the aforementioned articles.

The provisions of this numeral do not apply to the specific assumptions contained in the current regulations approved by the SMV that qualify certain assumptions as material facts.

[19] Article 30 of the Single Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF.

5.3. In all cases the Issuer must act diligently to communicate its material facts, and in case of doubt as to whether information qualifies as a material fact, it must choose to disclose it as such.

Any reference to Annex in this article shall be understood as referring to Annex 1”.

13. Furthermore, regarding material facts, article 9, numerals 9.1 and 9.2 of the RHI, provides the following:

“Article 9.- Timing to report material facts

9.1. The Issuer must report its material fact as soon as such fact occurs or the Issuer becomes aware of it, and in no case beyond the day on which it has occurred or has been known. This information must be communicated to the SMV before any other person, entity or media, and simultaneously when applicable to the Stock Exchange or the entity administering the respective centralized negotiation mechanism. This, regardless of whether the information has been generated or not within the Issuer itself.

9.2. An Issuer is presumed to have knowledge of a material fact referring to it when said fact originates in its own organization or controlling shareholder; when it is communicated or informed of the occurrence of the fact or it is a fact that has been publicly disclosed or disseminated. Additionally, an Issuer is considered to have knowledge of a material fact referring to it that originates in the controlling entity of its economic group, when there are reasonable indications that its main officers have become aware of the fact or if the Issuer could reasonably have known it.

(…)”.

14. In relation to the foregoing, the material facts described in literals b), c), d), i), j), k), l), m), and n) of the previous section, are qualified as such in accordance with Annex 1 of the RHI, as follows:

“Annex 1

1. Call to shareholders' meetings, creditors' meetings or bondholders' meetings, indicating the respective agenda and the documentation available to shareholders, creditors and bondholders, as the case may be, as well as the agreements adopted therein.

(…)

2. Adoption of resolutions that imply the amendment of bylaws, transformation, merger, spin-off and other forms of corporate reorganization; as well as the restructuring, dissolution, liquidation and bankruptcy of the Issuer, in which cases, in addition to the respective resolutions, the information detailed below forms part of the material event:

(…)

2.3. In the case of resolutions on capital increase or reduction, grouping or splitting of shares, amortization or redemption of shares, or modifications of the nominal value of shares:

a. In the case of an increase in share capital and/or investment shares through capitalizations, the amounts and concepts that originated the

variation of the share capital and/or investment shares account, and the period to which the capitalization corresponds, as well as the new amount to which said accounts amount, must be specified. In addition, the percentage of free shares corresponding to common and/or investment shareholders must be specified, as well as the rights that said shares will have.

(…)

22. Risk classification reports of the Issuer's securities, as well as their changes, updates or challenges, attaching a copy of the respective classification report.

(…)”

15. Regarding the material events detailed in literals a), and h) of Section I of this official letter, the provisions set forth in numeral 5.2, first paragraph, and in numeral 5.3 of article 5 of the aforementioned RHI must be taken into account;

16. On the other hand, in relation to the presentation of the financial information detailed in literals e), f) and g) of Section I of this official letter, articles 29 and 53 of the REGULATION provide the following:

“Article 29.- PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION

Without prejudice to the obligations related to its role as trustee referred to in article 27, securitization companies must submit to CONASEV the following:

a) Interim and annual financial statements, the latter audited, of the securitization company;

(…)”.

“Article 53.- Information related to securitization trusts.

Without prejudice to the obligation to report material events referred to in Article 28 of the Law, the registration of a security backed by a trust patrimony in the Registry generates the obligation to present the following information to it:

a) Interim and annual financial statements, the latter audited, of the trust patrimony;

(…).”

“FINAL PROVISIONS

(…)

SECOND.- Financial Information

The financial information referred to in the provisions of this regulation must be presented, as pertinent, in the manner and within the deadlines established by the rules issued by CONASEV for persons subject to its supervision and control and subject to the provisions of the Accounting Standards. Likewise, such information, in the cases that correspond, must be audited by a duly registered audit firm

(…)”.

17. In addition to the foregoing, articles 2 and 5 of the NORMAS provide the following:

“Article 2.- Obligation to present financial information and annual report

Issuing companies with securities registered in the RPMV, legal entities registered in the RPMV, collective fund management companies, and Investment Funds, are obliged to present to the SMV their annual individual or separate financial statements and interim individual or separate financial statements and annual report.

Additionally, issuing companies with securities registered in the RPMV, legal entities registered in the RPMV whose special regulation requires it, and Investment Funds must prepare the Management Report referred to in Chapter VIII of the Financial Information Regulation, according to the guidelines indicated in the Third Section of the Manual for the preparation of financial information, and present it together with the interim individual or separate financial statements”.

“Article 5.- Deadlines for presentation of interim individual or separate and consolidated financial statements

Issuing companies with securities registered in the RPMV, legal entities registered in the RPMV and collective fund management companies must present the interim individual or separate and interim consolidated financial statements, as applicable, to the SMV and, if applicable, to the entities responsible for the conduct of centralized negotiation mechanisms, on the day they have been approved by the corresponding body.

(…)”.

18. In relation to the Management Report of INTERTÍTULOS ST, numeral 4.1 of Title II of the “Technical Specifications of the Registry and Supervision Information System - SIRYS”, approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 080-2014-SMV/02, states the following:

“(…)

Interim individual financial statements:

For the information of the OBLIGATED PARTIES - issuer, fund management company, stock exchange, securitization company, securities clearing and settlement institution, price provider company – as well as the investment fund, the following must be sent:

40	Statement of Responsibility	The file of the statement of responsibility is attached.	Unstructured file
41	Management Analysis and Discussion	The file of the management analysis and discussion is attached	Unstructured file
42	Notes	The file containing the notes to the financial information is attached.	Unstructured file
43	Financial Statements	The file containing the structured financial statements is attached.	Structured file. See
		Financial Statements structured.	submission detail in numeral 2.4 of Title III

(…)”.

3.2. Of the Charges Formulated

19. By means of OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES, charges were formulated against INTERTÍTULOS ST for not communicating, within the period established by the regulations, the eventual information indicated in the third recital of this resolution;

3.3. Of the defenses presented

20. Through the brief submitted on 18 December 2023, INTERTÍTULOS ST presents its defense regarding the facts described in items a), b), c), e), f), g), i), m) and n) of the third recital and acknowledges the commission of the infractions imputed in items d), h), j), k) and l) of the third recital of this resolution, in accordance with Article 26, item a), of the REGULATIONS ON SANCTIONS;

21. As preliminary considerations, it points out that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 27 of the REGULATIONS and Articles 28 and 306 of the LMV, it has been complying with the obligations to report material facts and financial information regarding the company and the trust assets it administers, in accordance with the applicable regulations;

22. Regarding the timeliness for reporting material facts, it points out that, in accordance with Article 9 of the RHI, material facts must be reported as soon as the obligated party becomes aware of them and never later than the following business day. It adds that for this purpose the corresponding electronic means (the MVNet System) has been enabled, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the RHI20, complying with the applicable technical specifications;

23. Regarding the information to be submitted through the MVNet System, INTERTÍTULOS ST points out that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Regulations of the MVNet and SMV Virtual System, approved by SMV Resolution No. 092-2020-SMV-0221, the documentation sent through said portal must have the pertinent digital signature certificate. Once the information has been submitted through said means, the SMV may not deny having received it, in accordance with the principle of non-repudiation;

24. The securitization company states that, since the MVNet System is a system supported by a technological infrastructure (where all information must be digitized or converted to digital support), it may be subject to failures and/or technical complications, indicating that this is

[1] “Article 7.- Obligation to Report 7.1. The Issuer must report its material facts to the SMV via MVNet, (…)”.

[2] “Article 3.- Validity of the documentation sent by MVNet or SMV Virtual The documentation submitted by MVNet or SMV Virtual is understood to be validly submitted to the SMV, provided that said documentation is signed, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, Law No. 27269 and its Regulations, approved by Supreme Decree No. 052-2008-PCM. (…)”.

recognized normatively, in Article 25 of the Regulations of the MVNet and SMV Virtual System;

25. Along these lines, INTERTÍTULOS ST specifies that material facts must be communicated on the same day on which the obligated party becomes aware of them through the MVNet System, which implies an enabled and active technological infrastructure. It adds that the documents submitted through the MVNet System must be sent with the pertinent digital certificate and, once uploaded, their submission may not be denied or rejected. Furthermore, it indicates that the documentary submission through the MVNet System may be hindered by technical failures linked, among others, to the obligated party's operational tools or the System itself;

Of the alleged infractions indicated in the OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES referring to Material Facts

26. Regarding the alleged late communication of the material fact referring to the agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of INTERTÍTULOS ST in the session held on 31 January 2020 (item a) of the third recital), the securitization company points out that, on 31 January 2020 (date of the aforementioned Board of Directors session), it complied with communicating said act and the agreements adopted therein, which referred to the approval of certain reports and minutes of compliance of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing prevention and board committees22;

27. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that said communication was made through the MVNet System, generating File 2020003733, and maintains that the information corresponding to the agreements adopted in the Board of Directors session of 31 January 2020 was delivered to the SMV on the same date, through the “General Requests” section, with valid signatures, and attaching the corresponding Presentation Letters and Board of Directors Session;

28. Considering the foregoing, the securitization company highlights that the MVNet System User Manual23 states – when referring to the “General Requests” section – that, through this option, companies can prepare general information to be submitted to the SMV. So much so that when the administered party chooses the type of information to be sent, the System will automatically register the area to which the documentation will be directed; and may even forward said documentation to the Lima Stock Exchange if it deems it pertinent;

29. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that, notwithstanding the foregoing, and in order to facilitate the dissemination of information, it decided to reiterate the communication of the agreements adopted in the Board of Directors Session of 31 January 2020, on 3 February 2020 (the next business day following the session) through the MVNet System, entering the documents again, under the Material Facts channel, generating File 2020003818;

30. It maintains that the aforementioned communication of 3 February 2020 must be qualified as accessory, since it had already been submitted via

[22] Agreements referring to the approval of: (i) the Second Semiannual Report of the Corporate Compliance Officer; (ii) the internal audit report of the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention System; (iii) the Minutes of the Comprehensive Risk Management Committee 2019.

[23] https://mvnet.smv.gob.pe/MVNet/Documentacion/Manual%20de%20Usuario%20MVNet.pdf

MVNet System the detail of the resolutions adopted at the Board of Directors Meeting of 31 January 2020 on the same date of its holding;

31. Regarding the alleged untimely communication of the material fact referred to in the risk classification report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, on the securities of the "First Issue of the First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools" (letter b) of the third recital, INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that, on 2 June 2020, it communicated said report through the MVNet System, generating File 2020018517, which it did as soon as it became aware of the report, considering that Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo sent the report by email to INTERTÍTULOS ST outside working hours, which it states can be verified in a copy of said email attached as Annex 2 to the statement of defense;

32. For the foregoing reasons, INTERTÍTULOS ST considers that, although the email entered its inbox on the night of 1 June 2020, in safeguard of its duties as an employer and in compliance with its labor and information security policies, it is considered that awareness was effectively taken on 2 June 2020 at the start of the working day. It specifies that on that day it immediately proceeded to report the respective material fact, in compliance with its duty as a securitization company; even though the market was already efficiently informed, inasmuch as the rating agency also communicated it as a material fact as soon as it issued the report (following its own labor and operational guidelines);

33. Regarding the alleged untimely communication of the material fact referred to the resolutions adopted by the Mandatory Annual Shareholders' Meeting of INTERTÍTULOS ST held on 9 June 2020 (letter c) of the third recital), the securitization company indicates that, on 9 June 2020 (the date the aforementioned Meeting was held), it communicated the resolutions adopted therein, which mainly referred to the approval of financial information and an increase in share capital by capitalization of earnings;

34. INTERTÍTULOS ST specifies that said communication was made in the MVNet System, for financial information and general communication, which can be verified in the delivery receipts attached as Annex 3 to its statement. However, it adds that when sending the information indicated in the preceding recital, it involuntarily and accidentally omitted to attach the letter summarizing the material fact of the Mandatory Annual Shareholders' Meeting, which would do nothing other than specifically point out – and by way of a summary – what was developed in the three (3) filings made on 9 June 2020, Letter CONT-IT-2020-00006;

35. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that upon identifying said omission, and in order to seek to facilitate the dissemination of the information, it decided to reiterate the communication of the resolutions by sending Letter CONT-IT-IT-2020-00006, a copy of which is attached as Annex 4 to its statement, dated 10 June 2020 through the MVNet System;

36. Regarding the alleged untimely communication of the material fact referred to the risk classification report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, on the securities of the "First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools" (letter i) of the third recital), the securitization company states that, on 18 November 2021, it communicated said report through the MVNet System, which it did as soon as it was operationally enabled to do so;

37. According to INTERTÍTULOS ST, the foregoing is considered to be, in compliance with the technical specifications established for that purpose, it accessed the MVNet System on 17 November 2021 (the day on which it received the report by email) and due to operational problems beyond its control it was unable to send the information. The securitization company states that this was communicated to the SMV by letter attached as Annex 5 to its statement;

38. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that, as recognized by the MVNet Regulations, said system may experience operational failures, whereby the obligated party must make its best efforts to overcome such technical failures and make the material fact available to the market within the shortest possible timeframe;

39. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that, in compliance with its obligations and the provisions of the RHI, it proceeded to make the corresponding arrangements for the resolution of the failure, and once resolved, it immediately reported the material fact;

40. Regarding the alleged untimely communication of the material fact referred to the risk classification report on the securities of the "First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools" dated 21 July 2022 (letter m) of the third recital), INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that, in this case, it is important to mention that it did not receive at any time through any means the report prepared by the Rating Agency Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., receiving the aforementioned through the originator of the securitization bonds on 25 July 2022;

41. Based on the foregoing, INTERTÍTULOS ST maintains that it was not possible for it to communicate the report within the corresponding timeframe, because it did not become aware of it until 4 days after its issuance;

42. It refers that, in compliance with its obligations and the provisions of the RHI, it communicated the corresponding information to the bondholders on the same day it became aware of the report, with the aim of avoiding any potential impairment of transparency in the market and guaranteeing timely access to relevant information;

43. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that its intention has always been to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it in its capacity as a securitization company before the SMV. Therefore, with respect to the imputation of the alleged breach, it considers it important that the justification set forth be taken into account and that the failure to communicate the material event within the established period was not a voluntary act contrary to the fulfillment of its obligations, but on the contrary, it was the result of the failure to forward it by the credit rating agency to the securitization company, which was beyond its internal control;

44. It also requests that its attitude in communicating the event to the bondholders as soon as possible in order to avoid repercussions in the market be taken into account;

45. With respect to the alleged out-of-time communication of the material event referred to in the risk rating report on the securities of the “Primer Programa de Bonos de Titulización de Colegios Peruanos” dated 18 November 2022 (literal n) of the third recital) of the NOTICE OF CHARGES, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that, in this case, it is important to mention that it never received, through any means, the rating report from the same rating agency, but rather received it from the originator of the securitization bonds on 21 November 2022;

46. Based on the foregoing, INTERTÍTULOS ST maintains that it was not possible for it to communicate the report within the corresponding period, because it did not have knowledge of it until 3 days after its issuance;

47. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that, in compliance with its obligations and with the provisions of the RHI, it proceeded to communicate the corresponding information to the bondholders on the same day it became aware of the report, with the aim of avoiding a potential impact on market transparency and ensuring timely access to relevant information;

48. It reiterates that its intention has always been to fulfill the obligations incumbent upon it as a securitization company before the SMV. Therefore, with respect to the imputation of the alleged breach, it considers it important that the justification set forth be taken into account and that the failure to communicate the material event within the established period was not a voluntary act contrary to the fulfillment of its obligations, but on the contrary, it was the result of the failure to forward it by the credit rating agency to the securitization company, which was beyond its internal control;

49. It also requests that its attitude in communicating the event to the bondholders as soon as possible in order to avoid repercussions in the market be taken into account;

50. INTERTÍTULOS ST adds that responsibilities have been established and the necessary measures implemented to prevent similar situations from recurring, demonstrating its intention to always comply with its obligations by sending an email to the credit rating agency indicating that the reports must be sent directly to the securitization company;

Regarding the alleged infractions indicated in the OFICIO DE CARGOS referring to the submission of financial information

51. With respect to the alleged untimely submission of the financial information described in subparagraphs e), f) and g) of the third recital of this resolution, INTERTÍTULOS ST points out that they would allegedly have been configured as a result and consequence of the same event, being even within the same period of time;

52. INTERTÍTULOS ST points out that it understands that the applicable regulations establish that the financial information mentioned above must be communicated to the SMV on the same day of its approval. However, in this case, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that it could not submit the financial information on time (although it was able to submit the corresponding material fact) because the digital signature program of the accountant in charge presented failures that prevented her from signing the documents that would be sent to the SMV;

53. It points out that the signature of the accountant is a requirement for the submission of financial information, insofar as said person assumes joint and several liability for the content of the reports. In this regard, it cites article 4 of the NORMAS24;

54. Likewise, INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that, in application of the principles of administrative sanctioning power, the principle of presumption of lawfulness established in paragraph 9 of article 246 of the TUO of Law No. 2744425, and taking into consideration the force majeure that it points out, INTERTÍTULOS ST would have been in the situation described in subparagraph b) of the exception to the use of MVNet established in article 25 of the MVNet Regulations, from which the following follows:

“Article 25.- Cases of exception to the use of MVNet The use of MVNet is mandatory for the Obligated Entities. However, the Obligated Entities are excepted from using it, for the sending of information, in the following situations: (…) b) When the personal or laptop computer of the person authorized to digitally sign the documents, on behalf of the Obligated Entity, is disabled for technological reasons of installation, configuration or application of information security policies of the Obligated Entity. (…)”. (Emphasis added by INTERTÍTULOS ST)

55. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that this case concerns the failure in the digital signature of the accountant, which it considers a force majeure event, which is not constant and is beyond the responsibility, control and/or ordinary foresight that it may implement;

56. INTERTÍTULOS ST requests that, in the denied assumption in which it is decided to impose a fine as a sanction for the alleged infractions, the provisions of subparagraph g)26 of article 27 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES27 be taken into consideration;

[24] “Article 4.- Closing date of individual or separate interim financial statements and consolidated interim financial statements The interim individual or separate and consolidated interim financial statements submitted to the SMV by issuing companies with securities registered in the RPMV, legal entities registered in the RPMV, collective fund management companies, and investment funds must be digitally signed by a certified public accountant and by the company's legal representative. (…)”. (Our own emphasis by INTERTÍTULOS ST)

[25] “Article 246.- Principles of administrative sanctioning power (…) 9. Presumption of lawfulness. – Entities must presume that the administered parties have acted in accordance with their duties as long as they do not have evidence to the contrary. (Our emphasis) (…)”.(Our own emphasis by INTERTÍTULOS ST)

[26] In its arguments, reference is made to subsection a); however, the content of the development of said argument refers to subsection g).

[27] “Article 27.- EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENTS

57. The securitization company states that, in compliance with its obligations and with the provisions of the NORMAS, it proceeded to carry out the corresponding technical reviews to restore the functioning of the accountant's digital signature and proceeded to communicate the financial information approved on 2 November 2020 on the following business day, 3 November 2020;

58. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that its intention has always been to comply with the obligations that correspond to it in its capacity as securitization company before the SMV. It requests that the justification presented be taken into account and that the failure to communicate the financial information within the established period was not a voluntary action against compliance with its obligations, but on the contrary, was the result of a failure in the accountant's digital signature which prevented it from complying with the conditions set forth to submit the information;

59. Likewise, it points out that it is important to take into consideration the justification letter sent to the SMV for the delay in the communication contained in Annex 7 of its brief;

On the acknowledgment of certain infringements

60. INTERTÍTULOS ST acknowledges the commission of the infringements imputed in subsections d), h), j), k) and l) of the third recital and requests the reduction of the sanction to be imposed in case the SMV deems it necessary to impose a pecuniary sanction, in accordance with the provisions of Article 26° of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS28;

61. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that it acknowledges the commission of the aforementioned infringements in a manner that is (i) precise; (ii) concise; (iii) clear; (iv) express and unconditional and (v) without presenting ambiguous or contradictory expressions. Likewise, it should be noted that its acknowledgment is being made in writing within the period established by the OFFICIO DE CARGOS–extended by the term extension officio- for the submission of arguments. In that sense, we request the reduction of the fine that may be imposed on us by fifty percent (50%);

62. Likewise, it requests that prior to the determination of the sanction, in accordance with the principle of reasonableness that governs the administrative sanctioning procedure, the following be taken into account: (i) what is mentioned in the sections of its brief referring to the application of the sanction criteria and the principle of reasonableness to the alleged infringements imputed to INTERTÍTULOS ST and to the determination of the sanction; (ii) the mitigating circumstances configured with respect to each of the infringements; and, (iii) the minor nature of the infringements, punishable by admonition;

[28] The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infringements: g) Fortuitous event, force majeure or another exceptional situation that, in the SMV's judgment, is comparable to a duly proven fortuitous event or force majeure”.(Our own emphasis by INTERTÍTULOS ST) 28 “Article 26.- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENTS The following constitute mitigating circumstances of liability for infringements: a) Acknowledgment of responsibility by the infringer expressly and in writing, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has begun. When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following: 1. If the acknowledgment of the infringement is presented within the period granted for the submission of arguments, the reduction amount shall be fifty percent (50%). (…)” .(Our own emphasis by INTERTÍTULOS ST)

On the application of the principle of reasonableness in the sanctions imposed by the SMV.

63. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that, in order to determine a possible sanction, every administrative body must take into consideration the principles that inspire the sanctioning power of the public administration, the same ones that are developed in the TUO DE LA LPAG, and among which is the principle of reasonableness;

64. With regard to the principle of reasonableness, INTERTÍTULOS ST cites author Morón Urbina29, articles IV, numeral 1.4, and 248, numeral 3, of the TUO LPAG; article 348° of the LMV. Based on this, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that the SMV's power to determine the amount of a sanction does not constitute a free decision within the minimum and maximum margins provided, but must be justified, within the framework of the seriousness of the facts and the graduation criteria clarified by law (intentionality, harm caused, circumstances of the commission of the offense, repetition of the commission, etc.) and the other applicable norms. It adds that, even if the imputed act constituted an infringement, the sanction must be reasonable, based on the subjective elements of the commission and the effects produced;

65. Likewise, in its additional written arguments, INTERTITULOS ST points out that the use of the principle of proportionality involves the existence of three sub-principles: suitability, necessity and proportionality in the strict sense, and mentions that according to Santiago Jimenez30, these sub-principles refer to: “Suitability: (…) requires that the measure or act restricting a constituted right have a purpose; and (…) demands that the measure itself be suitable for achieving that purpose (…). Necessity: (…) consists of examining whether the measure being evaluated is the least restrictive of the fundamental right affected, in relation to other equally effective measures (…). Proportionality in the strict sense: (…) requires that the measure in question bear a reasonable relationship to the purpose sought to be achieved (…):”

On the application of the sanction criteria and the principle of reasonableness to the alleged infractions attributed to INTERTÍTULOS ST

66. INTERTÍTULOS ST points out that the communication of the information described in literals a), b), c), e), f), j), k), m), n) of the third recital, on later dates according to the STATEMENT OF CHARGES, occurred in that manner due to external causes, operational errors and system failures beyond the will of INTERTÍTULOS ST;

67. It reiterates that at all times it has intended to comply with its obligations with the greatest possible diligence, proceeding with the sending of the information at the earliest moment possible, and even, where appropriate, sending letters to the SMV justifying the delay in the communications, adopting the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of such

[29] Morón Urbina, J., 2017. Comments on the General Administrative Procedure Law. 12 ed. Lima: Gaceta Jurídica, p. 405.

[30] Santiago Jiménez, A., 2008. The Principles of Proportionality and Reasonableness in the Doctrine and Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Vol 6. Lima: Lex – Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the Universidad Alas Peruanas, p. 5-6.

errors and delays in the submission of information, and always seeking to resolve the external obstacles that prevented the sending of the information;

68. In the denied event that INTERTÍTULOS ST is considered to have incurred the aforementioned alleged infractions, INTERTÍTULOS ST requests that consideration be given to the provisions of the Criteria Applicable to the Administrative Sanctioning Procedure for Breach of the Rules Regulating the Submission of Periodic or Eventual Information, established in the Rules applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the SMV, SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV-01, as well as the principle of reasonableness previously commented on, in accordance with the following:

a) With regard to the seriousness of the harm to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that there has been no harm to the public interest or to any protected legal interest, since, with the aim of safeguarding market transparency, the information was communicated at the first moment in which it was obtained or its sending was made possible.

b) With regard to the harm caused and its impact on the market, INTERTÍTULOS ST considers that these are nil, since the delay in sending the material facts and the financial information has not generated any type of economic harm nor has it caused any effect on the market. In its written arguments, INTERTITULOS ST indicates that the foregoing is evidenced by the lack of claims against it alleging possible harm caused by the alleged untimely communications of material facts

Regarding this criterion, for literals m) and n) of the third recital, in its additional written arguments it states that the risk classification reports were published by the risk classifier by virtue of its obligation established in subsection 32.3 of article 32 of the Regulation of Risk Classification Companies, SMV Resolution No. 032-2015-SMV-01, and therefore considers that the market and investors were not harmed with respect to the principle of transparency, since the classification reports were disclosed to the market on their same date of issuance, and therefore concludes that the risk classification reports were made available to the market in a timely, truthful, sufficient and complete manner.

In this regard, the securitization company states that the obligation of INTERTITULOS ST to report the risk classification reports as a material fact is not relevant, since the publication made by the classifier is sufficient for the purposes of complying with the principle of transparency.

In addition to this, for the aforementioned literals, INTERTITULOS ST states that the classification reports did not contain changes in the rating or material information that could generate an effect on the decision of investors;

c) With regard to the offender's record, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that it has no record.

SMV

PERÚ

d) With regard to the criterion of repetition and/or continuity in the commission of the infraction, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that this refers to a situation unrelated to the company.

e) With regard to the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that the communications of the material facts and financial information were sent at the moment it became aware of the information, sending the corresponding clarifications in the event that it was an operational error or a system failure. In its additional written arguments, the securitization company specifies that, regarding items m) and n) of the third recital, it must be considered that it did not receive the reports prepared by the rating agency through the means normally used for such type of communications, and therefore states that the infringements of said items were caused by facts beyond its control capabilities.

f) Regarding the illegally obtained benefit, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that there is no benefit for itself, nor for its shareholders or related parties.

g) Regarding the existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct, it states that there was no intention on the part of INTERTÍTULOS ST to breach its obligations.

69. INTERTÍTULOS ST points out that the principle of proportionality requires that the sanction imposed be adequate, necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement and that the evaluation of the facts must consider these factors, as well as the criteria developed;

On the determination of the sanction

70. INTERTÍTULOS ST requests that all elements of gradation for the determination of the sanction be included in the evaluation, in the denied assumption of imputation, considering the following:

a) INTERTÍTULOS ST complied with submitting the material fact and financial information at the moment immediately after it had access, submitting, if applicable, the corresponding justification to the SMV.

b) The conduct of INTERTÍTULOS ST has not proven or generated: (i) quantifiable damage, (ii) serious impact on the market, (iii) obtaining an illegal benefit, (iv) intent in the commission of the infringement, (v) no other aggravating factor, in accordance with the provisions of the SMV Sanction Criteria.

71. Likewise, it requests that the application of mitigating elements and the analysis set forth in the Sanction Criteria be taken into consideration, as well as the good faith shown in its conduct;

3.4 Evaluation of the defenses

72. This analysis must begin by stating that INTERTÍTULOS ST has acknowledged the commission of the infringements imputed in items d), h), j), k), and l) of the STATEMENT OF CHARGES, and has therefore requested the application of the mitigating circumstance of responsibility established in article 26, item a), of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, as well as attention to the principle of reasonableness. In this regard, it must be indicated that said acknowledgment will be taken into consideration at the time of evaluating the sanction to be imposed;

73. Likewise, it is necessary to indicate that INTERTÍTULOS ST is a company supervised by the SMV, with authorization to operate granted by CONASEV Resolution No. 094-99-EF/94.10 of 5 October 1999, and it is aware of the applicable regulations for the submission of occasional and periodic information corresponding to the trust assets under its fiduciary control as well as to itself, and therefore it has the obligation to act diligently in the communication of said information;

74. Regarding the material facts observed, INTERTÍTULOS ST states that these must be reported on the same day on which the obligated party becomes aware of them, never later than the current business day, and through the MVNet System, complying with the applicable technical specifications and with the pertinent digital signature certificate, in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the Regulation of the MVNet and SMV Virtual System, approved by SMV Resolution No. 092-2020-SMV-02 (hereinafter, MVNET SYSTEM REGULATION) 31. Then, the securitization company adds that the MVNet System is a technological infrastructure that may be subject to failures and/or technical complications. In this regard, it must be indicated that these arguments will be taken into account when evaluating the defenses presented in relation to the material facts described in items a), b), c), i), m) and n) of the third recital, as follows:

On the material fact described in item a) of the third recital

75. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that, on 31 January 2020, it complied with reporting the holding of the board meeting of that date, as well as the resolutions adopted, with File No. 2020003733, through the MVNet System, via the “General Requests” section. Furthermore, it indicates that it decided to reiterate the communication under the “Material Facts” channel, on 3 February 2020, through File No. 2020003818, in order to facilitate the dissemination of the information, and therefore it classified this last communication as ancillary;

76. In this regard, it was observed that, through File No. 2020003733, the securitization company submitted as a “GENERAL COMMUNICATION – General Requests” a letter informing the SMV of the holding of the board meeting of 31 January 2020 and the resolutions adopted at said meeting. However, such circumstance does not exempt INTERTÍTULOS ST from its obligation to report its material facts to the SMV via MVNet, complying with the technical specifications approved for such purpose and having to ensure that in the submission of the information there is coherence between it and the existing classification or typology in the MVNet, in accordance with the provisions of article 7 of the RHI32;

[31] “Article 3.- Validity of the documentation sent by the MVNet or SMV Virtual The documentation submitted by the MVNet or SMV Virtual is understood to be validly submitted to the SMV, provided that said documentation is signed, in accordance with the provisions of articles 2 and 3 of the Law on Signatures and Digital Certificates, Law No. 27269 and its Regulation, approved by Supreme Decree No. 052-2008-PCM”.

[32] “Article 7.- Obligation to Inform 7.1. The Issuer must report its material facts to the SMV via MVNet, and when it has its securities listed on the Stock Exchange or in a centralized trading mechanism, said information is transmitted through the single electronic window. 7.2. Material facts must be submitted in compliance with the technical specifications approved by the SMV. The Issuer must ensure that when submitting the information there is coherence between the content thereof and the existing classification or typology in the MVNet.

77. In the communication of 31 January 2020, made through File No. 2020003733, there was no coherence between the information submitted and the existing classification or typology in the MVNet, since the information was submitted through the "General Requests" option and not through the "Information Obligations - Material Facts" option enabled in the MVNet, as previously indicated. Consequently, the information was not disseminated on the Securities Market Portal, that is, it was not made known to the general public;

78. In that sense, INTERTÍTULOS' obligation to communicate the material fact regarding the resolutions adopted by its board of directors is deemed fulfilled, outside the established deadline, with the communication of 3 February 2020, made through File No. 2020003818, since only with said communication were the requirements set forth in article 7, paragraph 7.2, of the RHI, mentioned above, observed;

79. It should be noted that what is stated in the "MVNet System User Manual"33, cited by INTERTÍTULOS ST, does not indicate that material facts must or may be communicated through the "General Requests" option enabled in the MVNet. The manual, as well as the Regulation of the MVNet and SMV Virtual System, approved by SMV Resolution No. 010-2013-SMV-01 (hereinafter, FORMER REGULATION OF THE MVNET SYSTEM), in force at the time of the events, indicate the sections and options enabled in the MVNet for the communication of mandatory information, such as material facts. In this regard, for the submission of information that qualifies as a material fact there is the section: "Information Obligations" - option: "Material Facts", as observed in paragraphs 2.1 "Options of the MVNet System" and 3 "Section: Information Obligations" of the manual cited by the securitization company and in article 13, literal a), of the FORMER REGULATION OF THE MVNET SYSTEM34;

80. Likewise, it should be noted that, in accordance with article 13, literal e), of the FORMER REGULATION OF THE MVNET SYSTEM and paragraph 7 of the aforementioned manual, the option for processing specific and general requests, which corresponds to the "General requests" option, consists of an option to send requests that are not contemplated in the other options numbered in article 13 of the

[33] 7.3. The obligation to report a material fact shall only be deemed fulfilled if the Issuer has observed the requirements established in this Regulation and in the corresponding technical specifications established by the SMV. (...)". 33 https://mvnet.smv.gob.pe/MVNet/Documentacion/Manual%20de%20Usuario%20MVNet.pdf

[34] "Article 13.- Of the options enabled in the MVNet The MVNet offers the following options to obligated entities: a) For mandatory information.- contains all the options referring to the submission of information that, according to the regulatory framework, obligated entities must submit to the SMV. b) For the use of procedures and services - TUPA.- contains the options for processing, through the MVNet, a service or procedure that culminates in an administrative act. c) For consultation of notifications.- contains the inbox for sending notifications and the response to them that must be made with information on the file number and mention of the type of document notified. d) For knowledge of sanctioning procedures.- contains the respective notifications associated with the sanctioning procedure. The entity will receive the notification and present its defenses in the same file and document number. e) For the processing of specific and general requests.- contains an option to send requests that are not contemplated in the previous options. f) For regularization or additional documentation.- contains the inbox for sending regularized documents, or complementary to an existing electronic file".

FORMER REGULATION OF THE MVNET SYSTEM, that is, the "General Requests" option is not an option to communicate material facts;

81. It should be reiterated that when an administered party communicates any information as "General Requests", this information is transferred to the SMV for the corresponding attention and is not disseminated to the market. In contrast, when information that qualifies as a material fact is submitted as such in strict compliance with the technical specifications, it is immediately disseminated to the market through the SMV Portal;

82. In this sense, the dissemination of material fact information through the SMV Portal allows access to them in a timely manner and by type of fact; since the information was not submitted as a material fact, such access may lead investors and potential investors to conclusions that a given issuer has not issued a certain type of material fact, thus affecting the process of making decisions based on complete, truthful and timely information. It should also be noted that the information on the material fact concerned the approval of reports related to internal control and risk management; from which the importance of the dissemination and communication of material facts in accordance with the technical specifications is evident;

Of the material fact described in literal b) of the third recital

83. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that it complied with reporting the material fact on the day it became aware of it, on 2 June 2020, given that the email by which the risk rating company sent it the rating report was sent, on 1 June 2020, outside its workers' working hours;

84. In this regard, it should be noted that, through the copy of the email submitted as Annex 2 of the defense brief, it has been verified that the risk rating company made the risk rating report known to INTERTÍTULOS ST, on 1 June 2020, at 19:06 hours, outside the working hours of the workers of the securitization company;

85. Taking into account the foregoing and that the rating report was sent to the SMV by the rating company on 1 June 2020 at 19:48 hours, and was disseminated from that moment through the SMV Portal, it must be considered that INTERTÍTULOS ST timely reported, on 2 June 2020, the material fact referring to the risk rating report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Issuance of the First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 31 December 2019, so the charge imputed should be archived;

86. Whereas the securitization company mentions that the risk rating company reported the rating report as a material fact, it should be clarified that the sending of rating reports to the SMV by risk rating companies is not done as a material fact and that the dissemination through the SMV Portal www.smv.gob.pe of the rating reports generated by their submission by the rating companies does not exempt issuers from their obligation to report such information as a material fact in accordance with the applicable regulations;

On the material fact described in literal c) of the third recital

87. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that it complied with reporting the resolutions adopted at the Annual Mandatory Shareholders' Meeting, on 9 June 2020, alleging that this can be verified in Annex 3 of its brief;

88. From the observation of Annex 3 of the defense brief, it is noted that INTERTÍTULOS ST refers to the communications submitted to the SMV, on 9 June 2020, through Files No. 2020019426 and No. 2020019433;

89. Through File No. 2020019426, INTERTÍTULOS ST submitted through the “Information Obligations - General communications” option of MVNet, and not through the “Information Obligations - Material fact” option, a letter with which it reported the capital increase resolution adopted by its General Shareholders' Meeting; therefore, this communication was not made in compliance with the technical specifications, and therefore, it was not disseminated to the general public;

90. On the other hand, with File No. 2020019433 the securitization company reported as a material fact the approval and submission of the audited annual financial statements for fiscal year 2019 corresponding to the trust patrimony under fiduciary ownership of the Company “Patrimonio en Fideicomiso – D.Leg.N°861, Título XI – Primer Programa de Bonos de Titulización Colegios Peruanos”, which was approved by the General Shareholders' Meeting held on 9 June 2020. This material fact is established in numeral 10 of Annex 1 of the RHI;

91. However, the material fact that is the subject of the charges refers to the resolutions adopted at the Annual Mandatory Shareholders' Meeting held on 9 June 2020, which is established in numeral 1 of Annex 1 of the RHI;

92. Additionally, through Annex 4, the securitization company refers to the submission dated 9 June 2020 of its audited individual annual financial information as of 31 December 2019 of the securitization company under file 2020019431 (Annex I), and of the Patrimonio en Fideicomiso – D.Leg.N°861, Título XI – Primer Programa de Bonos de Titulización Colegios Peruanos under file 2020019434 (Annex II), which correspond to the submission of its financial information; and not to the material fact referred to. In this regard, it should be reiterated that securitization companies must report their material facts to the SMV via MVNet, ensuring that in the submission of the information there is coherence between it and the classification or typology existing in MVNet, and that the obligation to report a material fact shall only be deemed fulfilled if the issuer has observed the requirements established in the RHI, in accordance with the provisions of article 7 of the RHI;

93. Consequently, none of the communications sent through Files No. 2020019426, No. 2020019431, No. 2020019433 and No. 2020019434 can be considered to fulfill the obligation to report the material fact referring to the resolutions adopted by the Annual Mandatory Shareholders' Meeting of INTERTÍTULOS ST held on 9 June 2020, since the communication sent with File No. 2020019426 does not comply with the requirements established by the RHI; the communication made with Files No. 2020019431 and No. 2020019434 correspond to the submission of its financial information, that is, another type of information; while the communication sent through File No. 2020019433 refers to a material fact different from the fact under observation;

94. Consequently, the material fact described in literal c) of the third recital is deemed presented on 10 June 2020, through File No. 2020019561;

On the material fact described in literal i) of the third recital

95. INTERTÍTULOS ST states that it entered the MVNet System on 17 November 2021, the day it received the risk classification report by email, and due to operational problems it was unable to submit the information that day;

96. With the letter submitted on 18 November 2021 through File No. 2021043975, INTERTÍTULOS ST stated that it had problems with the MVNet System on 17 November 2021, in order to upload the risk classification report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 30 September 2021. However, the securitization company did not prove that on 17 November 2021 there were problems using the MVNet that prevented it from submitting the aforementioned material fact;

97. In light of what was stated by INTERTÍTULOS ST regarding the fact that it had issues with the MVNet System on the date on which it was required to submit the communication of the material fact under analysis, it is important to note that, in accordance with article 20 of the MVNET SYSTEM REGULATIONS, in order to prove the time at which obligated entities complied with their information obligations, the SMV will provide the MVNet log in which all events that obligated entities and the SMV carry out through the MVNet are recorded;

98. In that regard, from the review of the Event Log35 of the MVNet System corresponding to INTERTÍTULOS ST for 17 November 2021, it can be seen that no events have been recorded that prove that the securitization company attempted to submit the aforementioned material fact or issues attributed to the MVNet System that could have prevented the management company from sending the communication of the aforementioned material fact that day;

99. Consequently, it must be considered that the material fact referring to the risk classification report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 30 September 2021, was reported on 18 November 2021, when it should have been communicated to the RPMV on 17 November 2021;

[35] Article 2 of the MVNET SYSTEM REGULATIONS: “Article 2.- Terms For purposes of these Regulations, the terms set forth below have the following scope: a) Log: File containing the chronological record of all events carried out in the MVNet System and in the SMV Virtual, specifying the date, time, type of transaction, Obligated Entity or User of the SMV Virtual, person who accesses the systems on behalf of such entities, if applicable, and event carried out”.

Of the material facts described in literals m) and n) of the third recital

100. INTERTÍTULOS ST maintains that it was not possible for it to communicate the classification reports as material facts within the established period, given that it had no knowledge of them, as it had not received the classification reports from the risk rating company that prepared them;

101. In this regard, it must be specified that it is the issuer's responsibility to submit its material information in a timely manner and, based on its duty of care, it must adopt the appropriate measures in order to communicate and submit its material facts within the established period. In this sense, INTERTÍTULOS ST, as a specialized entity, authorized and supervised by a regulator for more than 24 years, and which provides its services in a market governed by principles such as investor protection, market transparency, and market integrity, is aware of the information that must be communicated as a material fact, such as the risk classification reports regarding the securities issued by the trust estates under its fiduciary management;

102. Likewise, it must be highlighted that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the RISK RATING COMPANIES REGULATION36, risk rating companies must submit the classification reports they prepare, on the same date of their issuance, to the issuer and the SMV. In the present case, it is noted that the risk classification report prepared by the Risk Rating Company Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools” with financial information as of March 31, 2022 and September 30, 2022, were submitted to the SMV, through File No. 2022030211 and No. 2022046717, on July 21, 2022 and November 18, 2022, respectively;

103. Given the foregoing and considering that, according to item 9.2 of Article 9° of the RHI, it is presumed that an issuer has knowledge of a material fact referring to it when such fact originates in its own organization, when it is communicated or informed of the occurrence of the fact, or when it is a fact that has been publicly disseminated or spread, it is noted that INTERTÍTULOS ST could have become aware of the classification reports regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools” with financial information as of March 31, 2022 and September 30, 2022, on July 21, 2022 and November 18, 2022, respectively, and therefore should have submitted the reports as material facts on said dates;

104. The securitization company indicated that it became aware of the classification report prepared with financial information as of March 31, 2022, on July 25, 2022, through the originator of the bonds, and stated that it complied with communicating the corresponding information to the bondholders on that same day. In

[36] “Article 32.- Of the classification granted 32.1. Prior to the Committee's decision, the Rating Company shall send to the Issuer the main considerations in the evaluation carried out, in accordance with what is indicated in item 30.5 of Article 30 of the Regulation, regarding which the Issuer may request from the Rating Company only the correction of possible errors in the information or the non-disclosure of confidential information. 32.2. Once the procedure detailed in the preceding item has been completed, the Rating Company shall proceed to issue the corresponding classification report. 32.3. On the same date of the issuance of the classification report, the Rating Company shall proceed to its publication in the classification listing, referred to in item 33.2 of Article 33 of the Regulation, its submission to the Issuer and to the SMV”.

in this regard, it must be pointed out that such facts have not been proven. On the other hand, upon reviewing the material facts submitted by INTERTÍTULOS ST during July 25, 2022, it has been verified that the securitization company did not submit any material fact in relation to the risk classification report subject to the charge;

105. In this sense, it is noted that the risk classification report regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools” with financial information as of March 31, 2022, was submitted as a material fact by INTERTITULOS ST on October 19, 2022, through File No. 2022041864, that is, ninety (90) days after July 21, 2022, the date on which the material fact should have been communicated;

106. Likewise, the securitization company indicated that it became aware of the classification report prepared with financial information as of September 30, 2022, on November 21, 2022, through the originator of the bonds, and stated that it complied with communicating the corresponding information to the bondholders on that same day, it must be pointed out that such facts have not been proven. For its part, upon reviewing the material facts submitted by INTERTÍTULOS ST during November 21, 2022, it has been verified that the securitization company did not submit any material fact in relation to the risk classification report mentioned in this paragraph;

107. In this sense, it is noted that the risk classification report regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Securitization Bond Program of Peruvian Schools” with financial information as of September 30, 2022, was submitted as a material fact by INTERTITULOS ST on January 27, 2023, through File No. 2023003976, that is, seventy (70) days after November 18, 2022, the date on which the material fact should have been communicated;

108. It should be considered that the information was submitted 90 and 70 days late with respect to the deadline, despite the fact that, as alleged by the securitization company, the originator of the securitization bonds brought the rating reports to the attention of INTERTITULOS ST on 25 July and 21 November 2022;

109. Additionally, regarding the email from INTERTÍTULOS ST to the Risk Rating Agency Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C. dated 27 January 2023, by which the securitization company informs of its channel for sending rating reports, a copy of which is filed as Annex 6 of the defense brief, it must be indicated that the same is taken into account as part of the measures implemented by the securitization company to prevent delays in the communication of material facts. Without prejudice to the material charges of the infractions, it should be added that this communication was subsequent to the dates on which even the securitization company states it became aware of the aforementioned rating reports;

110. On the other hand, regarding what was stated by the securitization company that, in application of the provisions of Article 32, item 3 of the REGULATION FOR RISK RATING COMPANIES, the obligation to disclose rating companies' reports as a material fact is not relevant for INTERTITULOS ST; it must be indicated that these are different obligations, so the fact that a rating company publishes its reports does not exempt the securitization company from its obligation to timely submit material facts;

111. On the other hand, it must be reiterated that information on material facts is disseminated through the SMV Portal, which is known to investors, potential investors and the market in general, who can access said information by date and by type of fact, among other criteria; therefore, if the securitization company does not comply with submitting the rating reports as a material fact according to the applicable typology, or does not submit them in a timely manner, such situation could be understood by the market as the risk rating reports not having been issued, affecting the investment decision-making process, which affects market transparency. Assuming what was stated by INTERTITULOS ST would imply that investors in general must carry out a search for information on their own from various sources; thus affecting not only market transparency, but also investor protection and market integrity;

112. On the other hand, to maintain that the material facts in question are not relevant because the classification reports did not contain changes in the rating or material information, would imply that information on risk classification is only relevant in cases where there is a decrease in credit quality, which is consistent with the fact that investment decisions are not only referred to possible sales of a security held in tenure, but also to decisions to buy additional securities or maintain the current tenure; therefore, in that sense, considering that the risk classifications of a given security can evolve over time, it is of interest to the market in general to know whether the classification has improved, worsened or remained unchanged;

113. Likewise, INTERTITULOS ST assumes that the fact of informing the market about what the outlook of the classification is, whether or not there have been changes in strategies and operations or in potential limitations, or the result of the economic and financial analysis or the implications of the economic context on the classification, among others; is not material information, and therefore is not relevant for investors and potential investors, when it is they who must evaluate according to their criteria the materiality of said information and how it could influence their investment decisions; therefore, the lack of timeliness as a material fact in the communication of said reports affects market transparency;

Of the facts described in literals e), f) and g) of the third recital

114. INTERTÍTULOS ST indicates that the financial information approved on 2 November 2022 could not be presented on time because the digital signature program of the public accountant in charge of signing the financial statements presented failures that prevented her from signing the documents that would be sent to the SMV;

115. Under that context, INTERTÍTULOS ST points out that it would have been in the assumption provided by article 25, literal b), of the REGLAMENTO DEL SISTEMA MVNET37, which refers that obligated entities are excepted from

[37] “Article 25.- Assumptions of exception to the use of MVNet The use of MVNet is mandatory by the Obligated Entities. However, the Obligated Entities are excepted from using it, for the sending of information, in the following situations: (…)

using the MVNet System, for the sending of information when the personal or laptop computer of the person authorized to digitally sign the documents, such as the public accountant who must sign the financial statements, is disabled for technological reasons of installation;

116. The securitization company added that, in compliance with its obligations and the provisions of the NORMAS, it proceeded to carry out the corresponding technical reviews to restore the functioning of the accountant's digital signature and, once this was achieved, it proceeded to communicate the financial information approved on 2 November 2020 on the following business day, 3 November 2020;

117. On this matter, it should be noted that INTERTITULOS ST sent to the Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades of the SMV at 10:36 am an email on 02 November 2020 in order to inquire about the means other than MVNet that it could use for the remission of the information subject to charge given the observations that its accountant presented with the digital signature;

118. On the same date, at 11:30 am, said Intendencia proceeded to answer the referred query; indicating as a reference what was the regulatory framework that the securitization company should review related to exceptions to the use of MVNet, this under the assumption that, as INTERTITULOS ST is an entity authorized, regulated and supervised by the SMV, which participates in a specialized market, it must know and apply the norms that regulate it;

119. Notwithstanding the foregoing; INTERTITULOS ST only at 00:47 hours on 03 November 2020, that is, one day after the date of presentation of the information, requests technical support from the SMV and sends an email to the address atencionmvnet@smv.gob.pe; as a result of this, the securitization company sends the information subject to charge on said date;

120. In this regard, it should be noted that article 26 of the REGLAMENTO DEL SISTEMA MVNET establishes that if the assumption established in article 25, literal b) of said regulation occurs, the obligated entity must request the OTI38, immediately, through the option provided by the MVNet, to enable the Contingency MVNet, attaching the corresponding support, which may be the capture of screens that evidence the technical problems or inconveniences that arose; this in order that entities can comply with their obligations to send information in a timely manner;

121. However, under the assumption that in the present case it is within the scope established by the referred article 25, literal b), it should be indicated that even when the information could have been sent

[b] When the personal or laptop computer of the person authorized to digitally sign the documents, on behalf of the Obligated Entity, is disabled for technological reasons of installation, configuration or application of information security policies of the Obligated Entity. (…)”. (Emphasis own of INTERTÍTULOS ST)

[38] Article 2 of the REGLAMENTO DEL SISTEMA MVNET: “Article 2.- Terms For the purposes of this Regulation, the terms indicated below have the following scope: (…) j) OTI: Office of Information Technologies of the SMV or the one that takes its place. (…)”.

duly on 02 November 2020 applying the provisions of the aforementioned article 26 regarding the Contingency MVNet, INTERTÍTULOS ST sent the information subject to the charge one day late in each case;

122. It should be noted that according to the MVNet Log, on 02 November 2020, the accountant of INTERTITULOS ST first logged into the MVNet only at 21:54;

123. In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that INTERTÍTULOS ST has not disproved the charges described in literals a), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), j), k), l), m) and n) of the OFICIO DE CARGOS, as mentioned, INTERTÍTULOS ST is aware of the applicable regulations for the submission of eventual information, and therefore has the obligation to act diligently in the communication of said information. However, this did not occur, since the lack of diligence led INTERTÍTULOS ST to incur thirteen (13) infractions subject to this administrative proceeding;

124. Indeed, in the present case, it is verified that INTERTÍTULOS ST submitted the information described in literals a), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), j), k), l), m) and n) of the third recital outside the period provided by the applicable regulations:

Literals (third recital)	Date of occurrence or approval	Submission deadline	Date of submission	Delay (days)
a)	31/01/2020	31/01/2020	3/02/2020	3
c)	9/06/2020	9/06/2020	10/06/2020	1
d)	21/08/2020	21/08/2020	24/08/2020	3
e)	30/09/2020	02/11/2020	03/11/2020	1
f)	30/09/2020	02/11/2020	03/11/2020	1
g)	30/09/2020	02/11/2020	03/11/2020	1
h)	10/08/2021	10/08/2021	11/08/2021	1
i)	17/11/2021	17/11/2021	18/11/2021	1
j)	12/01/2022	12/01/2022	20/01/2022	8
k)	18/01/2022	18/01/2022	20/01/2022	2
l)	2/03/2022	2/03/2022	8/03/2022	6
m)	21/07/2022	21/07/2022	19/10/2022	90
n)	18/11/2022	18/11/2022	27/01/2023	70

125. Consequently, taking into account the considerations set forth above, INTERTÍTULOS ST has incurred thirteen (13) infractions classified as minor, typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1, of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, in force at the date of the commission of the facts, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “To submit outside the established period, or to do so incompletely, or, without observing the technical specifications approved by the SMV or without communicating the approval by the corresponding corporate body, to the SMV, to the Exchange, to the entity in charge of the centralized negotiation mechanism or to any other entity or subject of the securities market, the audited individual or consolidated financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, material events and annual reports”;

126. On the other hand, regarding the allegations referring to the evaluation of the principle of proportionality, principle of reasonableness indicated in article 248°, numeral 3, of the Single Ordered Text of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), the “Criteria Applicable to the Administrative Sanctioning Procedure for Non-Compliance with the Rules that regulate the Remission of Periodic or Eventual Information”, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTION CRITERIA) and the mitigating circumstances of responsibility for infractions, it must be indicated that these will be considered at the time of carrying out the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed. At this point, it should be added that the criterion of continuity is not applicable to the infractions subject of charges;

IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION

127. In accordance with the provisions of article 35° of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, the commission of an infraction of a minor nature is subject to a sanction corresponding to a warning or a fine of not less than one (1) and up to twenty-five (25) Tax Units (UIT);

128. Considering that in the present case infractions typified as minor are evaluated referring to non-compliance with the deadline for submitting eventual and periodic information, subparagraph 1 of the SANCTION CRITERIA must be taken into account, which establishes that the purpose thereof is “to establish the sanction parameters that within the framework of the General Administrative Procedure Law, the Securities Market Law and the Decree Law on Collective Fund Management Companies allow sanctions to be applied to issuers with securities registered in the Public Registry of the Securities Market, legal persons registered in the Registries under the charge of the SMV, and other persons obliged to submit periodic or eventual information for non-compliances in the timely remission of said information that are typified as a minor infraction in the annexes of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF-94.10. The criteria developed below apply exclusively to non-compliances with the rules that regulate the remission of periodic or eventual information and do not apply extensively to the other cases investigated by this Superintendency”;

129. Therefore, to evaluate the sanction that must be imposed on INTERTÍTULOS ST for the non-compliances with the deadline for submitting eventual information described in this resolution, the SANCTION CRITERIA must be applied;

130. Likewise, it must be mentioned that the application of said criteria observes the principle of proportionality established in the TUO DE LA LPAG, since it allows determining in a predictable manner for the administered, the sanctions to be imposed on the issuers of securities, and on the persons registered in the RPMV for non-compliances in the deadlines for remission of information to which they are obliged by the rules and for omission in the remission of that information that is required by the SMV;

131. In this sense, it must be indicated that the regulatory framework and the evaluation of the sanction that considers the SANCTION CRITERIA applied in the present case, guarantee the development of a reasonable and fair procedure, to the extent that the sanction is based on objective cause, guaranteeing the exercise of the right of defense and the use of proportionality criteria for the graduation and establishment of the sanction; it must also be indicated that the SANCTION CRITERIA apply only to cases of infractions to the opportunity rules. Likewise, numeral 4 of said criteria indicates that the objective thereof is to establish the parameters that the competent bodies of the SMV must apply in order to avoid that it is not more advantageous for the offender to commit the sanctionable conduct and assume the sanction, than to comply with the infringed rules; specifying that the evaluation must be carried out with respect to each sanctionable infraction;

132. In order to determine the sanction corresponding to the infractions described in literals a), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), j), k), l), m) and n) of the third recital, and in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 3.2 of the SANCTION CRITERIA, the evaluation criteria set forth in article 348° of the LMV, in article 248°, numeral 3, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, in article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, as well as in subparagraph 4.1 of the SANCTION CRITERIA, whose observance is mandatory, must be taken into account. Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) The severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; b) The economic harm caused and the impact on the market; c) Prior sanctions; d) Recidivism39; e) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; f) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; g) The existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender; and, h) The probability of detection of the infraction;

133. Regarding the severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, it must be taken into consideration that in the case of the submission of periodic or occasional information, any non-compliance with the regulations on its timely submission, that is, the failure to observe the deadlines established to submit such information, affects the transparency of the securities market, as this safeguards the right of investors (actual and potential) and the general public to access such information in a timely manner in order to adopt investment decisions or carry out a certain evaluation; as well as affects the SMV in the implementation of its supervision and control activities that seek to protect the integrity of the market;

134. Therefore, it can be stated that INTERTÍTULOS ST has affected the protected legal interest, which is market transparency, given that it submitted late occasional information regarding the trust assets under its fiduciary control, as well as regarding itself, described in items a), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), j), k), l), m) and n) of the OFFICIO DE CARGOS;

135. It should be noted that INTERTITULOS ST in its additional written arguments states that the dissemination of material facts such as those indicated in items m) and n) are not relevant, based on compliance obligations on the part of risk rating companies; which implies the lack of awareness it has as an issuer regarding the fact that certain information that qualifies as a material fact and is duly disseminated to the market according to its nature serves as a basis for the adoption of investment decisions or for the purposes of third-party decisions such as creditors. Assuming that market participants must gather information from a source of

[39] The sanction criteria referring to Recidivism and the Probability of detection of the infraction were introduced by Article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 1272 which modified, among others, Article 230; numeral 3 of the LPAG.

third parties affects the legal interests of transparency, as well as that of investor protection;

136. Additionally, it should be noted that the infractions indicated in items j) and l) of the third recital were submitted 08 and 06 days late with respect to the deadline, it being necessary to point out that in the case of item j), the material fact regarding the call to the bondholders' meeting was submitted on 20 January 2022, that is, after the first call to the meeting, and only 2 business days before the second call. In the case of item l), the material fact regarding the call was disseminated to the market as of 08 March 2022, that is, the same day as the first call, and 5 business days before the second call; which evidences the impact on the bondholders regarding their potential participation in the first call or the fact of having the corresponding information in due time for the case of the second call;

137. With regard to the economic harm caused and the impact on the market, in the present case, it has not been evidenced that the infractions incurred by INTERTÍTULOS ST have produced a concrete quantifiable harm in the market, that is, it has not been determined that one or more investors have been concretely affected or caused economic damage, and therefore it has also not been evidenced that there has been an impact on the market;

138. Likewise, regarding prior sanctions, it should be noted that according to the SANCTION CRITERIA and Article 25, item a) of the SANCTION REGULATIONS, final sanctions imposed by the SMV within four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned constitute prior sanctions, and the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered a prior sanction;

139. In this regard, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that INTERTÍTULOS ST does not present prior sanctions in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infractions evaluated in this resolution;

140. With reference to recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, taking into account the final sanction imposed by the SMV within one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned, it must be mentioned that INTERTÍTULOS ST does not present sanctions for the commission of the infractions subject to analysis in this administrative sanctioning procedure, and therefore recidivism is not configured;

141. As for the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, it must be mentioned that INTERTÍTULOS ST, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, knows the rules that regulate the securities market and, in that sense, the rules that oblige it to submit to the SMV occasional and periodic information within the deadlines established therein. However, INTERTÍTULOS ST did not submit in a timely manner the information detailed in items a), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), j), k), l), m) and n) of the third recital of this resolution, subject to evaluation in this sanctioning procedure;

142. INTERTÍTULOS ST has indicated that such infractions occurred in that manner due to external causes, operational errors and system failures beyond its control. Likewise, in the case of infractions m) and n), it stated that it implemented measures to prevent these situations from recurring;

143. Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infractions, it must be noted that it has not been proven that INTERTÍTULOS ST obtained a benefit directly related to the infractions under analysis in this administrative proceeding;

144. As to the existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct, it has not been evidenced that INTERTÍTULOS ST acted with intent in the commission of the infractions under analysis;

145. With regard to the probability of detection of the infractions, it must be indicated that in the present case the infractions incurred by INTERTÍTULOS ST were evidenced as a result of the supervision and control activities carried out by the SMV regarding compliance with the timely submission of periodic and event-driven information, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable regulations; therefore, the probability of detection was high;

146. Continuing with the analysis, it is appropriate to determine the sanction to be imposed on INTERTÍTULOS ST. In that sense, the SANCTION CRITERIA establish that a warning sanction may be imposed when the following guidelines set forth in subsection 4.2, numeral (ii) of said criteria are concurrently met: (i) the impact on market transparency is minimal; (ii) the infraction committed has not caused a concrete harm to investors or associates; (iii) the offender has no prior record or, if it has one, it involves infractions classified as minor offenses imposed in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction being evaluated; (iv) the offender has not obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct; and, (v) it has not been proven that the offender acted with willful misconduct in the commission of the infraction;

147. Likewise, said SANCTION CRITERIA establish that if a warning sanction is not applicable, a fine sanction must be imposed;

148. Accordingly, in accordance with the evaluation carried out, it has been verified that INTERTÍTULOS ST has no record of sanctions in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infractions being evaluated, and is not a repeat offender in the commission of the infractions evaluated; likewise, it has not been proven that the infractions committed have caused a concrete harm to the market, it has not been evidenced that the securitization company obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct, nor has it been proven that it acted with willful misconduct in the commission of the infractions;

149. With regard to the condition that the impact on the transparency of the securities market be minimal, it must be noted at the outset and as mentioned in the evaluation of the sanction criteria, that any non-compliance with the regulations regarding the deadlines established for submitting periodic and event-driven information affects the transparency of the securities market, even more so if this non-compliance is prolonged over time and because such information is relevant not only for the investors and shareholders of the company, but for the market in general. In that sense, it is the obligation of every securitization company to submit the event-driven information required by the regulations within the established deadlines, that is, in a timely manner;

150. However, it must be noted that, in relation to the material events described in literals a), c), d), e), f), g), h), i), and k) of the third recital of this resolution, although they present delays ranging between one (1) and three (3) days, it can be seen that during the time in which INTERTÍTULOS ST did not report said material events to the SMV, the degree of impact on market transparency has been minimal; without prejudice to the fact that in similar cases, a greater delay in the submission of information may determine a greater degree of impact on the transparency of the securities market;

151. Therefore, as a result of the evaluation carried out, INTERTÍTULOS ST meets the conditions established in subsection 4.2, numeral (ii) of the SANCTION CRITERIA, so according to said criteria the sanction to be applied for each of the infractions described in the previous paragraph would be a warning;

152. Regarding the material events described in literals j), l), n) and m) of the third recital of this resolution, it must be noted that they were submitted by INTERTÍTULOS ST with eight (08), six (06), ninety (90) and seventy (70) days of delay, respectively, so the prolongation in the non-compliance with the deadline established in the regulations to submit said information acquires greater relevance. Consequently, the greater delay in the submission of the material events has determined the degree of impact on the transparency of the securities market, therefore it is not appropriate to apply a warning sanction to the infractions mentioned in this paragraph;

153. In that sense, according to the guidelines established in subsection 4.2, numeral (iv) and (v) of the SANCTION CRITERIA, in the case of non-compliance in the submission of eventual information, it would be appropriate to apply, with respect to the infractions contained in literals j), l), m) and n) of the third recital of this resolution, a fine of 10.2 UIT equivalent to S/ 46,920.00 (Forty-six thousand nine hundred twenty and 00/100 Soles); this considering that all the infractions subject to charges are classified as minor offenses; in which each one, being independent, is evaluated separately, with an assessment of the fine to be imposed for each infraction; thus, in the present case, the fines for the referred literals have fluctuated at a minimum between 1.8 UIT and at a maximum, 3.0 UIT, with the 4 infractions together totaling the referred 10.2 UIT;

154. On the other hand, it should be noted that in this proceeding the existence of aggravating circumstances contemplated in subsection 4.2, numeral (vi) of the referred SANCTION CRITERIA has not been determined;

155. Meanwhile, through SMV Resolution No. 007-2023-SMV/01, the Gradualness Regime for Sanctions for late submission of financial information, annual report and material events40 (hereinafter, GRADUALNESS REGIME) was approved, which entered into force on 1 January 2024;

156. Now then, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity, contained in numeral 5 of article 248 of the TUO OF THE LPAG41,

[40] Published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on 8 September 2023.

[41] “Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:

the sanctioning provisions in force at the time the infraction is incurred apply, unless subsequent norms are more favorable;

157. Considering the aforementioned principle, the SANCTION CRITERIA (currently repealed) should be applied to the present case, unless the GRADUALNESS REGIME42 contains provisions more favorable to INTERFONDOS SAF;

158. On this matter, it is observed that the application of the GRADUALNESS REGIME is not more favorable for the present case;

159. In addition to the foregoing, it is appropriate to analyze the exemptions and mitigating circumstances of liability established in article 257 of the TUO DE LA LPAG43 as well as the provisions of articles 26 and 27 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES;

160. In accordance with the provisions of article 257, numeral 1 of the TUO DE LA LPAG and article 27 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, it is not observed that in the present case any of the circumstances constituting conditions exempting liability has been configured;

161. With regard to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infractions and the contribution of the offender to their clarification, established in article 257, numeral 2, subparagraph a) of the TUO DE LA LPAG and in article 26, literals a) and b) of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, it must be noted that INTERTÍTULOS ST has contributed to the clarification of all the infractions subject to evaluation; however, it has only acknowledged its responsibility for the infractions described in literals d), h), j), k), and l) of the third recital expressly and in writing, within the period granted for the submission of defenses, and in a precise, concise, clear, and unconditional manner, without ambiguous or contradictory expressions;

(…)

5.- Non-retroactivity.- The sanctioning provisions in force at the time the administered party engages in the conduct to be sanctioned are applicable, unless subsequent ones are more favorable to it. Sanctioning provisions produce retroactive effect insofar as they favor the presumed offender or the offender, both with regard to the classification of the infraction and the sanction and its prescription periods, even with respect to sanctions in execution upon the entry into force of the new provision.

[42] It should be noted that the application of the RÉGIMEN DE GRADUALIDAD, as well as the CRITERIOS DE SANCIÓN, observes the principle of proportionality established in the TUO DE LA LPAG, since it allows determining in a predictable manner for the administered party the sanctions to be imposed on issuers of securities and persons registered in the RPMV for non-compliance with the deadlines for sending information to which they are obligated by the rules and for omission in sending the information required by the SMV.”

[43] “Article 257.- Exemptions and mitigating circumstances of liability for infractions 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infractions: a) Fortuitous event or duly proven force majeure. b) Acting in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of the right of defense. c) Mental incapacity duly proven by the competent authority, provided that it affects the aptitude to understand the infraction. d) The mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) The voluntary correction by the possible sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constituting an administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the imputation of charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 235. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating liability for infractions: a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated, the offender acknowledges its responsibility expressly and in writing. In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount not less than half of its amount. b) Others established by special rule.”

162. In this regard, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 26°44, literal a), numeral 1 and fourth paragraph of the same article, the amount of the applicable fine should be reduced by fifty percent (50%), in the case of literals j) and l), so the determined fine is reduced from 10.20 UIT to 8.10 UIT, equivalent to S/ 37,260.00 (Thirty-seven thousand two hundred sixty and 00/100 Soles);

In accordance with the provisions of article 32°, numeral 17, of the Regulations on Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments, as well as the SANCTION CRITERIA and its amendment;

RESOLVES:

Article 1.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material fact regarding the agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of INTERTÍTULOS ST in the session held on 31 January 2020.

Article 2.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has not incurred in one (1) minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material fact regarding the risk classification report prepared by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, with respect to the securities corresponding to the “First Issue of the First Securitization Bond Program of Colegios Peruanos” with financial information as of 31 December 2019, in accordance with the recitals of this resolution; and, consequently, proceed to archive this administrative sanctioning procedure in this regard.

Article 3.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material fact regarding the agreements adopted by the Annual Mandatory Shareholders' Meeting of Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST held on 9 June 2020.

[44] “Article 26.- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LIABILITY The following constitute mitigating circumstances of liability for infractions: a) Express and written acknowledgment of liability by the offender, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has begun. When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following: 1. If the acknowledgment of the infraction is presented within the period granted for the submission of defenses, the reduction amount shall be fifty percent (50%). (…) The acknowledgment of liability regarding an infraction must be made precisely, concisely, clearly, expressly and unconditionally, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it shall not be understood as an acknowledgment. If defenses are submitted, despite having made an acknowledgment of liability, it shall be understood as a non-acknowledgment, and the authority shall proceed to evaluate the defenses”.

Article 4.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material fact regarding the agreements adopted in the Assembly of the holders of the securitization bonds issued under the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Securitization Bond Program Colegios Peruanos” held on 21 August 2020.

Article 5.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the individual interim financial statements of Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST corresponding to the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, approved on 2 November 2020, in accordance with the recitals of this resolution; and, consequently, proceed to archive this administrative sanctioning procedure in this regard.

Article 6.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the management report of Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST corresponding to the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, approved on 2 November 2020, in accordance with the recitals of this resolution; and, consequently, proceed to archive this administrative sanctioning procedure in this regard.

Article 7.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the management report of Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST corresponding to the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, approved on 2 November 2020, in accordance with the recitals of this resolution; and, consequently, proceed to archive this sanctioning administrative proceeding in this regard.

Article 8.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the annual validation report carried out by Sustainalytics regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program”, issued on 10 August 2021.

Article 9.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the risk classification report carried out by Class y Asociados S.A. Clasificadora de Riesgo, regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program” with financial information as of 30 September 2021.

Article 10.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the call to the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program”, with call agreement dated 12 January 2022.

Article 11.- Declare that Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the resolutions adopted at the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program”, held on 18 January 2022.

Article 12.- Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the call to the Assembly of the holders of the bonds of the “Trust Estate D. Leg. No. 861, Title XI – First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program”, with call agreement dated 2 March 2022.

Article 13.- Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the risk classification report carried out by the Risk Classifier Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program” with financial information as of 31 March 2022.

Article 14.- Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having timely submitted the material event referring to the risk classification report carried out by Clasificadora de Riesgo Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C., regarding the securities corresponding to the “First Peruvian Schools Securitization Bond Program” with financial information as of 30 September 2022.

Article 15.- Sanction Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST with nine (09) reprimands, for the provisions of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of this resolution.

Article 16.- Sanction Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST with a fine of 8.10 UIT, equivalent to S/ 37,260.00 (Thirty-seven thousand two hundred sixty and 00/100 Soles) for the provisions of Article 10, 12, 13 and 14 of this resolution.

Article 17.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative remedy, unless it is consented to, and may be challenged before the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision by filing a motion for reconsideration, submitted to the same, within a period of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

Article 18.- In the event that this resolution is not challenged by means of a reconsideration appeal within fifteen (15) business days of its notification and becomes final, it must be published on the SMV Institutional Page on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State, in compliance with the provisions of numeral 1, article 7 of the Policy on the dissemination of regulatory projects, general legal norms, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 014-2014-SMV/01 and its amendment, and by the provisions of article 14 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 19.- Transcribe this resolution to Internacional de Títulos Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.-Intertítulos ST.

Register, communicate and publish.

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision