PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance
SMV
Superintendency of the Market in Securities

"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. 046-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 09 August 2024

Summary: The reconsideration appeal filed by Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. against Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV No. 048-2023-SMV/10 is declared founded, in application of the Principle of Beneficial Retroactivity set forth in numeral 5 of article 248 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law.

Administrated party
:
Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A.
Subject
:
Reconsideration appeal against Resolution of
Deputy Superintendency SMV No. 048-2023-SMV/10 File No.:
2022038998

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

VIEWS:

Administrative file No. 2022038998, the reconsideration appeal filed by Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. and Report No. 881-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance; and

CONSIDERING:

1. Pursuant to article 1 of Law No. 29782, Law for the Strengthening of the Supervision of the Securities Market, the name of the National Supervisory Commission 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 norms shall be understood as made to the SMV;

I. BACKGROUND

2. By Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV No. 048-2023-SMV/10 of 28 June 2023 (hereinafter, RESOLUTION), it was resolved to sanction Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. (hereinafter, KALLPA SAB) with a fine of 3.468 UIT, equivalent to S/ 15,259.20 (Fifteen thousand two hundred fifty-nine and 20/100 soles) and two (02) warnings for having incurred three (3) infractions of a minor nature classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to submit, within the term established by the applicable regulations, the annual individual financial statements, together with the external financial audit report and the Annual Reports corresponding to fiscal years 2020 and 2021;

3. By brief filed on 10 July 2023, KALLPA SAB requested a hearing to make use of the word;

4. By Official Letter No. 3213-2023-SMV/10, notified on 13 July 2023, the stock brokerage firm was informed, among others, that the request is not admissible insofar as the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision had already ruled on the commission of the infractions imputed by RESOLUTION. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it was invited to a working meeting;

5. On 20 July 2023, KALLPA SAB filed a reconsideration appeal against the RESOLUTION;

6. The reconsideration appeal has been evaluated by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance in Report No. 881-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Deputy Superintendency;

7. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in article IV, subparagraph 1, numeral 1.2, of the Preliminary Title, as well as in article 248, subparagraph 2 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG) and article 18 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION of the SMV, by Official Letter No. 2926-2024-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to KALLPA SAB for its review;

II. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE RECONSIDERATION APPEAL

8. According to the provisions of article 32, numeral 27 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF, it is the function of the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision to resolve reconsideration appeals against the resolutions it issues;

9. Likewise, article 218 numeral 218.2 of the TUO LPAG establishes that the term for filing appeals is fifteen (15) peremptory days. According to the provisions of article 144 of the TUO LPAG, the aforementioned term shall begin to count from the day following the legal notification of the challengeable administrative act;

10. In this regard, it has been verified that the reconsideration appeal was filed within the term established by article 218 of the TUO LPAG;

11. Pursuant to article 219 of the TUO LPAG, the reconsideration appeal is filed before the same body that issued the act subject to challenge and must be supported by new evidence. However, in cases of administrative acts issued by bodies that constitute a single instance, new evidence is not required;

III. ON THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY AUTOPLAN EAFC

12. KALLPA SAB alleges a breach of the principle of material truth, stating that the RESOLUTION that sanctions it with two warnings and a fine is based on the following analysis: In principle, it is indisputably stated that the annual individual financial statements, together with the external financial audit report corresponding to fiscal year 2020 (hereinafter, ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020) of KALLPA SAB were approved on 23 February 2021, the Annual Report corresponding to fiscal year 2020 (hereinafter, ANNUAL REPORT 2020) was approved on 23 February 2021 and the Annual Report corresponding to fiscal year 2021 (hereinafter, ANNUAL REPORT 2021) was approved on 28 March 2022. It adds that the RESOLUTION indicates that KALLPA SAB was the one who reported this through the digital reports generated by the MVNet system;

13. Considering the foregoing, according to the stock brokerage firm, it should have submitted the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 on 23 February 2021, the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 on 23 February 2021 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 on 28 March 2022. However, it breached the law and submitted through the MVNet system the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 on 25 February 2021, the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 on 23 March 2021 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 on 31 March 2022;

14. Therefore, it would have affected the protected legal interest, which is market transparency, given that it submitted the aforementioned financial information and annual reports late. Likewise, it indicates that by submitting the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 with a delay of 28 days from the submission deadline, the infringement is more significant;

15. In this regard, KALLPA SAB states that it has demonstrated with evidence that it did comply with the law, because the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 were approved on 25 February 2021, the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 was approved on 23 March 2021 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 was approved on 31 March 2022. KALLPA SAB adds that the first sworn statement submitted had typing errors. On this point, it specifies that they were human errors, that a person instead of typing 25/02/2021 typed 23/02/2021, instead of typing 23/03/2021 typed 23/02/2021 and instead of typing 31/03/2022 typed 28/03/2022. Additionally, it points out that its officers send more than ten thousand reports per year to the SMV, so it considers it reasonable to understand that in three of them there may be typing errors;

16. As proof that they were errors and that the documents submitted on 25 February 2021, 23 March 2021 and 31 March 2022 were approved on those dates, KALLPA SAB alleges that it sent a copy of the minutes of the respective general shareholders' meetings, that is, according to the stock brokerage firm, it is incorrect that the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 were approved on 23 February 2021, the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 was approved on 23 February 2021 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 was approved on 28 March 2022, while what is correct and true is that the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 were approved on 25 February 2021, the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 was approved on 23 March 2021 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 was approved on 31 March 2022, that is, it points out that it did comply with submitting the information on the dates on which it was approved by the general shareholders' meeting; and in line with the foregoing, the instructing body, based on the above, recommended the archiving of the imputed infractions;

17. KALLPA SAB states that in the detail of its defenses, regarding the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020, on 25 February 2021 (10:00 am) the general shareholders' meeting of KALLPA SAB approved said financial statements. On 25 February 2021 (11:17 am) through the MVNet system, KALLPA SAB sent the SMV the audited financial information for 2020. Due to a typing/input error, the approval date of said information was entered as 23 February 2021. In the defense brief of 10 October 2022 (04:54 pm), KALLPA SAB sent the SMV a copy of the minutes of the shareholders' meeting dated 25 February 2021;

18. Regarding the ANNUAL REPORT 2020, it is stated that on 23 March 2021 (09:30 am) the general shareholders' meeting of KALLPA SAB approved said annual report. On 23 February 2021 (10:09 am) through the MVNet system, KALLPA SAB sent the SMV said information. Due to a typing/input error, the Approval Date of said information was entered as 23 February 2021. In the defense brief of 10 October 2022 (04:54 pm), KALLPA SAB sent the SMV a copy of the minutes of the shareholders' meeting dated 23 March 2021;

19. Regarding the ANNUAL REPORT 2021, it is stated that on 31 March 2022 (02:30 pm) the general shareholders' meeting of KALLPA SAB approved said annual report. On 31 March 2022 (02:56 pm) through the MVNet system, KALLPA SAB sent the SMV said information. Due to a typing/input error, the Approval Date of said information was entered as 28 March 2022. In the defense brief of 10 October 2022 (04:54 pm), KALLPA SAB sent the SMV a copy of the minutes of the shareholders' meeting dated 31 March 2022;

20. KALLPA SAB maintains that article 221 of the General Corporations Law, Law No. 26887, specifies that the annual financial statements and the annual report of each company incorporated in the Republic of Peru must be approved by the mandatory shareholders' meeting. Therefore, KALLPA SAB submitted as an annex to its defense brief the copy of the corresponding minutes of the general shareholders' meetings dated 25 February 2021, 23 March 2021 and 31 March 2022. It adds that said minutes support and corrected the information erroneously entered through the MVNet system. Therefore, the minutes show as approval dates of the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 25 February 2021, the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 23 March 2021 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 31 March 2022;

21. The stock brokerage firm states that despite all of the foregoing, the resolution does not take into account the recommendation of the instructing body, and insists that KALLPA SAB committed infractions of the securities market rules and that for that reason it must be sanctioned;

22. Kallpa SAB, that the minutes submitted must be considered and that the shareholders, managers and workers, KALLPA SAB has a track record of honesty in its fifteen years of life, so there is no reason to doubt its shareholder minutes, and therefore requests that the law be applied. Likewise, it points out that the non-recognition of the minutes by this Deputy Superintendency would be based on the forced correlation of: (i) the communication submitted by KALLPA SAB regarding the approval by the shareholders' meeting of the composition of the Board of Directors for the period 2021 – 2023, and (ii) the approval by the shareholders' meeting of the audited financial statements, which as has been demonstrated with the respective minutes, was carried out on 25 February 2021. Therefore, KALLPA SAB concludes that this Deputy Superintendency does not take into account that the law allows the holding of various general shareholders' meetings during a fiscal year, as has happened at KALLPA SAB;

23. KALLPA SAB points out that the activities carried out by the Deputy Superintendency would expressly violate the General Administrative Procedure Law, in the principle of material truth:

24. The stock brokerage firm states that the Deputy Superintendency would violate said principle by not considering as evidentiary means the minutes of the general shareholders' meeting submitted as documents of defense and proof that it did not commit the imputed infractions. It adds that this Deputy Superintendency does not take into account that said minutes undeniably show that the 2020 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, the 2020 ANNUAL REPORT and the 2021 ANNUAL REPORT were submitted to the SMV on the day they were approved by the general shareholders' meeting of KALLPA SAB, thereby, according to the appellant, the Deputy Superintendency would expressly deny what is established in the General Corporations Law1 and the complementary regulations of the securities market, regarding the fact that financial information and annual reports can only be approved by the general shareholders' meeting of the company;

25. KALLPA SAB adds that in order to complement the information submitted through the minutes, it presents as part of its appeal additional documents that prove that the dates of the meetings were those appearing in the minutes: i) internal email of KALLPA SAB2 dated 22 March 2021. In this regard, the stock brokerage firm states that in said communication, the general manager authorizes that the 2020 ANNUAL REPORT be submitted to the company's shareholders' meeting for its approval and submission to the SMV. On the day following the aforementioned email, that is, on 23 March 2021, the 2020 ANNUAL REPORT was put under consideration and approved by the general shareholders' meeting of KALLPA SAB. It adds that on the same day of its approval, the 2020 ANNUAL REPORT was submitted through the MVNet system. Therefore, KALLPA SAB points out that if the general manager only requests that the annual report be sent to the general shareholders' meeting on 22 March 2021, it is impossible that on 23 February 2021 the general shareholders' meeting had approved the annual report, therefore, the dates of the minutes are correct;

26. Likewise, ii) internal email of KALLPA SAB dated 31 March 2022. In this regard, the stock brokerage firm states that in said communication, the general manager authorizes that the 2021 ANNUAL REPORT be

[1] Law No. 26887 - General Corporations Law Article 221.- Annual Report and financial information Once the fiscal year has ended, the board of directors must prepare the annual report, the financial statements and the proposed application of profits, if any. From these documents, the economic and financial situation of the company, the state of its business and the results obtained in the expired fiscal year must result, with clarity and precision. The financial statements must be made available to the shareholders with the necessary advance notice to be submitted, in accordance with law, for consideration of the mandatory annual meeting. Article 225.- Effects of approval by the general meeting The approval by the general meeting of the documents mentioned in the previous articles does not imply the discharge of the responsibilities that the directors or managers of the company may have incurred.

[2] In this regard, the stock brokerage firm specifies that the internal emails presented as annexes comply with the criteria of certification and registration of metadata. In that sense, it points out that the dates, recipients and contents indicated therein can be considered as certain and true and that they are feasible of confirmation by the technology area of the SMV.

submitted to the company's shareholders' meeting and submission to the SMV. It adds that the approval in the shareholders' meeting and submission through the MVNet system was carried out on that same day, that is, on 31 March 2022. Therefore, KALLPA SAB points out that if the general manager only requests that the annual report be sent to the general shareholders' meeting on 31 March 2022, it is impossible that on 28 March 2022 the general shareholders' meeting had approved the annual report, therefore, the dates of the minutes are correct;

27. KALLPA SAB states that the Deputy Superintendency does not take into account that the General Corporations Law does not establish limitations on the number of sessions of the general shareholders' meeting of a company. For this reason, the stock brokerage firm alleges that during the period subject to evaluation, the general shareholders' meeting of KALLPA SAB has met on different dates, with various agendas. Indeed, KALLPA SAB points out that in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years and even 2023, the general shareholders' meeting convened on various days, with each session having as its agenda the following items, which are illustrative but not limiting: election of the members of the company's board of directors, approval of audited financial information, approval of the annual report, approval of the application of profits for the fiscal year, among others;

28. The stock brokerage firm maintains that this Deputy Superintendency also fails to take into consideration that the Rules on the preparation and presentation of Financial Statements and Annual Report by entities supervised by the SMV, as well as the Regulation of Intermediation Agents, establish different deadlines for presentation to the SMV of audited financial statements (until 28 February of each year) and the annual report (until 31 March of each year). Due to the foregoing, during the review period, KALLPA SAB has submitted to its general shareholders' meeting for approval the audited financial statements and annual report in different sessions, as has been demonstrated with the copy of the minutes submitted, considering the different deadlines provided by the regulations for the approval and submission of said documents to the SMV;

29. KALLPA SAB points out that based on the principle of substantive truth regarding the minutes of shareholders' meetings already submitted, it considers that the new evidence provided in its appeal is sufficient to demonstrate that KALLPA SAB did not commit the infractions declared in the RESOLUTION. Therefore, it indicates that it is proven that in the present case there were no delays whatsoever in the presentation of the information submitted by KALLPA SAB; and, therefore, the legal interest protected by the SMV, which is market transparency, was not affected, for which reason it states that the RESOLUTION should be declared null and void and the present administrative sanctioning procedure should be annulled;

IV. EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

30. In this regard, it should be noted that as for the violation of the principle of substantive truth, this was also expressed by KALLPA SAB in its defenses, which was evaluated in the RESOLUTION in recitals 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92. Likewise, as for the reference to the minutes of the general shareholders' meetings, it was also set forth in its defenses and evaluated in the RESOLUTION in recitals 68 to 78;

31. On the other hand, it should be specified that in the RESOLUTION no pronouncement has been established that disregards the provisions of the General Corporations Law, as the stock brokerage firm seeks to allege;

32. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that in accordance with the third recital of the RESOLUTION, charges were filed against KALLPA SAB for infractions of the Regulation of Intermediation Agents, approved by SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV-01 (hereinafter, RAI) and the “Rules on the preparation and presentation of financial statements and annual report by entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market”, approved by SMV Resolution No. 016-2015-SMV/01 (hereinafter, RULES), in force at the time of the commission of the facts, since it would not have timely submitted, with respect to the date on which they were approved, the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 submitted to the SMV on 25 February 2021; the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 submitted to the SMV on 23 March 2021; and, the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 submitted to the SMV on 31 March 2022;

33. Likewise, according to the fourth recital of the RESOLUTION, said non-compliances are classified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which prescribes as an infraction of a minor nature: “Submit after the established deadline, or 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 individual or consolidated audited financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, material events and annual reports”;

34. In this regard, it should be noted that by SMV Resolution No. 013-2023-SMV/01 of 06 December 20233, the Rules on Preparation, Presentation and Dissemination of Financial Statements, Annual Report and Management Report applicable to entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market (hereinafter, NEW RULES) were approved, which replaced the RULES and modified, among others, the RAI;

35. It should be noted that although the NEW RULES entered into force as of 11 December 2023, said provisions have retroactive effect insofar as they are more favorable to the alleged offender or the offender, both with regard to, among others, the classification of the infraction and the sanction and its statute of limitations periods, in observance of the Principle of Benign Retroactivity, set forth in numeral 5 of article 248, numeral 5 of the TUO LPAG4;

36. In this regard, it should be noted that Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION classifies as an administrative infraction the submission, among others, of audited financial information and annual reports to the SMV after the established deadline. Thus, in the present case, the appealed resolution stated that the ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020 were

[3] Published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on 10 December 2023.

[4] “Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles: (…) 5.- Non-retroactivity.- The sanctioning provisions in force at the time the administered party incurs the conduct to be sanctioned are applicable, unless subsequent ones are more favorable to it. Sanctioning provisions have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the presumed offender or the offender, both with regard to the classification of the infraction and to the sanction and its prescription periods, including with respect to sanctions in execution when the new provision enters into force.”

submitted by KALLPA SAB outside the period established in article 96 of the RAI5 , in force at the time the events occurred, that is, after the day on which they were approved by the corresponding body. Likewise, it was noted that the MEMORIA ANUAL 2020 and the MEMORIA ANUAL 2021 were submitted by KALLPA SAB outside the period established in article 12 of the NORMAS6 , in force at the time the events occurred, that is, after the day of their approval;

37. In this context, the period for submitting the audited financial statements and the annual reports established in article 96 of the RAI and article 12 of the NORMAS (currently repealed), in force at the time the events occurred, respectively, must be applied to this administrative sanctioning procedure, unless the NUEVAS NORMAS contain provisions more favorable to KALLPA SAB;

38. Regarding the submission of the annual individual financial statements together with the external audit report, the Ninth Complementary Modifying Provision of the NUEVAS NORMAS provided for the amendment of article 96 of the RAI, which was drafted as follows:

“Article 96.- Audited financial statements The Agent must submit to the SMV its financial statements prepared at the close of each year, together with the external financial audit report, approved by the corresponding body, the deadline for their respective submission being 28 February of each year. (…).”;

39. From the foregoing it follows that article 96 of the RAI, currently in force, provides that brokerage agents have the obligation to submit to the SMV their annual individual financial statements together with the external audit report by 28 February of each year;

40. Now then, as can be seen in the third recital of the RESOLUCIÓN, KALLPA SAB submitted its ESTADOS FINANCIEROS ANUALES 2020 on 25 February 2021, that is, within the period established in the current article 96 of the RAI, that is, for the specific case until 28 February 2021;

41. Consequently, the provisions of article 96 of the RAI currently in force are applicable in this administrative sanctioning procedure, insofar as they are more favorable to the administered party with respect to the commission of the infraction that KALLPA SAB would have committed;

[5] “Article 96.- Audited financial statements The Agent must submit to the SMV its financial statements prepared at the close of each year, together with the external financial audit report, on the day they were approved by the corresponding body, the deadline for their respective approval being 28 February of each year. (…)”

[6] “Article 12.- Obligation to submit annual report (…) Issuing companies with securities registered in the RPMV, legal entities registered in the RPMV and collective fund management companies must submit to the SMV, on the day it was approved by the corresponding body, their Annual Report and, where applicable, the Annual Information Document. The deadline for its approval and respective submission is 31 March of each year. In the case of collective fund management companies, the deadline is 30 April of each year. (…)”

42. In that sense, upon verifying that KALLPA SAB submitted its ESTADOS FINANCIEROS ANUALES 2020 within the period established in article 96 of the RAI in force, this charge described in the aforementioned third recital of the RESOLUCIÓN must be archived, in application of the Principle of Benign Retroactivity, contained in numeral 5 of article 248 of the TUO LPAG;

43. On the other hand, regarding the annual reports, article 20 of the NUEVAS NORMAS establishes:

“Article 20.- Approval and submission deadline (…) 20.3 31 March of each year is the expiration date of the period for the submission and dissemination of the annual report. (…).”;

44. According to the foregoing, it is observed that article 20 of the NUEVAS NORMAS provides that legal entities registered in the Registro Público del Mercado de Valores, among which are stock brokerage firms, have the obligation to submit their annual report to the SMV by 31 March of each year;

45. Now then, as can be seen in the third recital of the RESOLUCIÓN, KALLPA SAB submitted to the SMV the MEMORIA ANUAL 2020 on 23 March 2021 and the MEMORIA ANUAL 2021 on 31 March 2022, that is, within the period established in the aforementioned article 20 of the NUEVAS NORMAS, that is, until 31 March 2021 and until 31 March 2022, respectively;

46. Consequently, the provisions of article 20 of the NUEVAS NORMAS are applicable in this administrative sanctioning procedure, insofar as they are more favorable to the administered party with respect to the commission of the infractions that KALLPA SAB would have committed;

47. In that regard, upon verifying that KALLPA SAB filed the ANNUAL REPORT 2020 and the ANNUAL REPORT 2021 within the term established in article 20 of the NEW RULES, it is appropriate to archive the charges described in the third recital of the RESOLUTION, in application of the Principle of Beneficial Retroactivity, contained in numeral 5 of article 248 of the TUO LPAG;

48. In accordance with the foregoing, in application of the principle of beneficial retroactivity set forth in numeral 5 of article 248 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, it is appropriate to declare the reconsideration appeal filed by KALLPA SAB founded; and, consequently, there is no basis to analyze the other arguments raised by the stock brokerage firm in its reconsideration appeal;

In accordance with the provisions of article 32, numeral 27, of the Regulations on Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF;

RESOLVES:

Article 1.- To declare the reconsideration appeal filed by Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. founded against Resolution of Deputy Superintendence SMV No. 048-2023-SMV/10, in application of the Principle of Beneficial Retroactivity set forth in numeral 5 of article 248 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law.

Article 2.- To leave without effect the sanctions imposed on Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. through articles 4 and 5 of Resolution of Deputy Superintendence SMV No. 048-2023-SMV/10.

Article 3.- To declare that the administrative remedy has been exhausted.

Article 4.- This resolution must be published on the SMV Institutional Page on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv ), in observance of the provisions of numeral 1, article 7 of the Policy on 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 Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 5.- To transcribe this resolution to Kallpa Securities Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. and to the Lima Stock Exchange S.A.

Register, communicate and publish.

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendence of Prudential Supervision