PERÚ Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
SMV
Superintendency of the Securities Market de Valores

"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 Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 033-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 18 de junio de 2024

Summary: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. former Collective Funds Management Company is sanctioned with a fine of 1UIT for having incurred two (2) serious infractions typified in Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not complying with the legal term established to provide a response to the associate's claims.

Administrados
:
Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. former Fund Management Company Colectivos.
Asunto
:
administrative sanctioning procedure
File No. : 2023040219

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

VISTOS:

Administrative file No. 2023040219, Report No. 1488-2023-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance, as well as the defenses presented by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. former Collective Funds Management Company1 ; and,

CONSIDERANDO:

1. In accordance with 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 referring to the SMV;

I. Hechos

2. By letter received on 13 May 2022, SEÑOR1 2 , filed a complaint3 before the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores (hereinafter, SMV), against Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE) for allegedly being harmed by irregularities committed by the officials of the company PLAN

[1] By Superintendente Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02 dated 06 November 2023, it was resolved to revoke the operating authorization of Plan Rentable SAC as Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos.

[2] The Annex attached to this resolution details the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong, and similarly, the email addresses.

[3] File No. 2022020899.

RENTABLE, since it states that in the month of November 2019 it acquired two (2) Certificates, through the figure of “assignment of contractual position”, which would have been brought to the attention of the General Manager of PLAN RENTABLE, having attached the bank deposits and audios of the conversations with the officials of PLAN RENTABLE, without having received, as of the date of the complaint, the possession and benefits of the aforementioned Certificates, which it states would be harming it economically, emotionally and causing a series of personal and commercial damages, such as not being able to reinvest and generate movements in its business, such as not belonging to a group, nor being able to participate in the assemblies, adjudications and auctions. In this sense, in its complaint it requests the delivery of the two (2) certificates that it acquired by assignment of contractual position from their owners, or failing that, it requests to recognize and compensate the patrimonial and immediate consequences caused by the administrative infractions in which PLAN RENTABLE has incurred;

3. In his complaint, SEÑOR1 specifies, among others, that in the personal meeting he had with the general manager of PLAN RENTABLE and his assistant that occurred between 26 or 27 October 2020, an opportunity in which, according to the complainant, he directly handed over in loose sheets the detail of the events that occurred and a copy of the bank deposits, as well as the audios and CD, which detail the days and times of the calls between the officials of PLAN RENTABLE, as well as the amounts deposited and delivered by the complainant, the indication of the administrative actions that would be carried out in order to complete the transfer by Assignment of the two (2) Certificates, having committed to respond in the following days; however, SEÑOR1 states that despite the time elapsed, he has not had any response;

4. SEÑOR1 attaches, among others, as part of his complaint:

• Screenshot of the email sent to CORREO3, with subject “Communication to the Attorney-in-Fact of Plan Rentable” dated 28 October 2020, in which a letter dated 28 October 2020 addressed to the general manager is attached;

• Copy of the letter dated 28 October 2020, addressed to the general manager of the former administrator, signed by the complainant, by which he states that for personal reasons he will not be able to attend the meeting scheduled for that day at its offices, in which they would give him a response to the events that occurred with the supervisor and the seller who acted on behalf of his represented; and, requests a response to CORREO4;

• Notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, addressed to the general manager of PLAN RENTABLE, with subject “Recognition of payments for transfer of certificates and delivery of benefits”, by which he reiterates a prompt response to his claim made in person to the General Management and later by email dated 28 October 2020, granting them a non-extendable term of seventy-two (72) hours to recognize and compensate the patrimonial consequences caused to the detriment of the complainant;

• Notarial letter dated 12 January 2022, addressed to the aforementioned general manager, with subject “Registration and delivery of two (2) certificates acquired by transfer from their owners”, by means of which he reiterates his request to have delivered to him the two (2) Certificates that he acquired by Transfer from their owners, having complied with the corresponding payment, for which he grants them a maximum and non-extendable term of

seventy-two (72) hours to acknowledge and compensate the direct and immediate patrimonial consequences caused to the detriment of the complainant;

• Notarial letter with certain date 26 January 2022, addressed to SEÑOR1, by means of which PLAN RENTABLE states, among other matters, that the payments should have been made to the company's account, which is why they cannot recognize them; and, that if he wishes to be informed how the purchase process of any contract is supposedly proceeding, he must indicate the name of the person who sold him said contract or, failing that, the contract number in order to provide the scope of said request;

  5. By Official Letter No. 2419-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 20 May 2022, the SMV forwarded the aforementioned complaint to PLAN RENTABLE so that it submits the corresponding comments, as well as the required documentation and the additional information and/or documentation it deems pertinent;

  6. By document received on 1 June 2022, PLAN RENTABLE, among other aspects, requested an additional term of seven (7) business days, in order to attach the corresponding documentation;

  7. By Official Letter No. 2899-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 2 June 2022, PLAN RENTABLE was granted an additional extension of seven (7) business days to submit the comments it deems appropriate;

  8. On 14 June 2022, PLAN RENTABLE responded to the request made by the SMV; among other aspects, regarding the response to the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, the former collective funds administrator requested the SMV to require the complainant to provide the Notarial Letter with the receipt stamp received by PLAN RENTABLE, since the one attached by the complainant is not the one that has been processed, proof of which is that it does not show who received it and the date of receipt by the Administrator, in order to be able to respond to what was requested;

  9. By email dated 9 August 2022 (hereinafter, CORREO1), the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance (hereinafter, IGCP) requested from SEÑOR1 at the email address CORREO4, among others, the following: Copy of the notarial letters dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021, showing the stamp or receipt stamp by the company PLAN RENTABLE;

  10. By Official Letter No. 5325-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 24 October 2022 (hereinafter OFICIO 5325), the IGCP again requested from SEÑOR1 the information requested by CORREO1;

  11. As of 23 March 2023, in response to CORREO 1 and OFICIO 5325, SEÑOR1 stated, among other aspects, that regarding the letter dated 28 October 2020, it is a simple letter that he sent to the company PLAN RENTABLE, which was sent on 28 October 2020 to CORREO3 and that he never received any response. On the other hand, regarding the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, the complainant states that it was processed by the Notary Office of Dr. Alfredo Zambrano Rodríguez on 20 May 2021 and that the aforementioned notarial letter was sent because several months had already passed since he had a first meeting with the general manager of PLAN RENTABLE, having been told to send the response to his claim to the personal email of SEÑOR1, so he decided to send a new letter but this time by notarial means, granting a term of seventy-two (72) hours for him to acknowledge and compensate the patrimonial consequences to his investment, due directly to the supervisor and seller, detailing each of the steps, meetings and payments made by the complainant to the aforementioned workers, who at all times acted on behalf of the company PLAN RENTABLE;

  12. By email dated 13 April 2023 (hereinafter, CORREO2), the IGCP reiterated to SEÑOR1 the submission of the copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021 showing the stamp or receipt stamp by the company PLAN RENTABLE;

  13. On 14 April 2023, SEÑOR1 responded to CORREO 2 by submitting a copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021 with the receipt stamp of PLAN RENTABLE dated 24 May 2021;

  14. By Official Letter No. 1694-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 18 April 2023, the IGCP forwarded to PLAN RENTABLE the copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, with receipt date 24 May 2021, and requested the response to the aforementioned notarial letter, as well as its comments and/or additional documentation it deems pertinent;

  15. By Official Letter No. 3077-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 05 July 2023 (hereinafter, OFICIO 3077), the IGCP reiterated to PLAN RENTABLE what was requested by OFICIO 1694 and requested additional information;

  16. On 12 July 2023, PLAN RENTABLE responded to what was requested by OFICIO 3077;

  17. By Official Letter No. 3435-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 27 July 2023 (hereinafter, OFICIO 3435), the IGCP requested additional information from SEÑOR1;

  18. It should be noted that SEÑOR1 did not comply with submitting what was requested by OFICIO 3435;

  19. By means of Official Letter No. 4358-2023-SMV/10.3 notified on 22 September 2023, an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against PLAN RENTABLE, imputing to it a charge for having failed to comply with the provisions of Article 68 of the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and their Management Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV-01 (hereinafter, REGULATION) and Article 3 of the "Rules applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market - SMV" approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV-01 (hereinafter, RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS), that is, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the legal term established to provide a response to the claims, dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021, filed by SEÑOR1.

  20. By means of a written submission dated 3 October 2023, PLAN RENTABLE presented the corresponding defenses;

  21. The charge formulated against PLAN RENTABLE as well as the defenses submitted by the aforementioned company have been subject to evaluation in Report No. 1488-2023-SMV/10.3 issued by the IGCP, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Deputy Superintendency;

  22. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2., of the Preliminary Title and in Article 248, paragraph 2, of the Single Ordered Text of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS and its amendments (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), by means of Official Letter No. 4965-2023-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review;

II. Issues to be determined

23. In the present administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision, it corresponds to determine the following:

a. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for not having complied with the legal term established to provide a response to the claim dated 28 October 2020, filed by the associate.

b. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.33 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with the legal term established to provide a response to the claim dated 20 May 2021, filed by the associate.

c. Whether or not it is appropriate to impose a sanction on PLAN RENTABLE;

III. Analysis

3.1 Applicable regulations

24. Regarding the resolution of claims, Article 68 of the REGULATION provides the following:

"Article 68.- Resolution of claims The Management Company must have personnel responsible for attending to the claims of the Associates, subject to the provisions of the Rules applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market - SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV-01, or the rule that replaces it.";

25. In that sense, Article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS establishes the procedure for handling claims:

"Article 3.- Handling of claims by legal entities authorized by the SMV Without prejudice to compliance with the rules that determine the direct handling of claims that final consumers may file and the obligation to have a Complaints Book, within the framework of the provisions of Articles 24 and 150 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code, Law No. 29571, the legal entities to which the SMV has granted operating authorization are obliged to directly handle any claim by their clients regarding the services they provide, within a maximum term of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of submission of the respective claim. That term may be extended for an equal period when the nature of the claim justifies it, a situation that is brought to the attention of the claimant before the end of the initial term. If the claimant requires it, the response must be made in writing.

(…)." (Underline added);

3.2 Charge

26. According to the regulatory framework, the term for the resolution of claims of the associates by PLAN RENTABLE is thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt thereof, and may be extended for an equal period when the nature of the claim justifies it, prior communication to the associate;

27. SEÑOR1 has stated that PLAN RENTABLE has not provided a response to his notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, in which he reiterates his request for a prompt response to his claim made in person to the General Management and by email dated 28 October 2020, granting them a non-extendable term of seventy-two (72) hours to acknowledge and compensate the patrimonial consequences caused to the detriment of the complainant;

28. Likewise, in the aforementioned notarial letter, SEÑOR1 details the facts described in his complaint;

29. Regarding the email dated 28 October 2020 that is mentioned in the notarial letter, SEÑOR1 with his complaint attached the email addressed to PLAN RENTABLE at CORREO3 at 8:58 hours, in which he attaches a letter in which he states he cannot attend the meeting scheduled for that date, in which they would give him a response to the events that occurred between the supervisor and the seller, and therefore requests that they provide a response to his email;

30. By means of Official Letter No. 2419-2022-SMV/10.3, the SMV transfers the complaint of SEÑOR1 to PLAN RENTABLE, so that it submits its comments and requests, among others:

d. Attach the response to the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021 sent to your represented company that SEÑOR1 attaches in his complaint;

31. In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE in its response to the aforementioned official letter, requested that the IGCP require the complainant to provide the acknowledgment of receipt of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, since the notarial letter attached to the complaint does not allow verifying the date of its receipt;

32. Accordingly, the IGCP requested from the complainant, through CORREO 1, OFICIO 5325 and CORREO 2, a copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, showing the stamp or acknowledgment of receipt by the company PLAN RENTABLE;

33. Therefore, SEÑOR1, through its written submission dated 14 April 2023, has presented the acknowledgment of receipt of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, with the date of receipt by PLAN RENTABLE on 24 May 2021;

34. In view of this, the IGCP, through Oficio N° 1694-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 18 April 2023, brought the aforementioned notarial letter to the attention of PLAN RENTABLE, so that it may submit the corresponding response, as well as its comments and any other information and/or additional documentation it deems pertinent;

35. Through OFICIO 3077, the IGCP reiterated to PLAN RENTABLE what was requested through OFICIO 1694 and requested additional information;

36. In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE, through a written submission dated 12 July 2023, has stated that the Notarial Letter was not in the case file, but that the explanations provided were not only in physical form, but also verbally; and that, furthermore, on 18 January 2022, a new notarial letter was sent to PLAN RENTABLE, which again recounted the denounced facts, which is why a response was sent on 26 January 2022;

37. Considering the foregoing, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the provisions of article 68° of the REGLAMENTO and article 3° of the NORMS APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, that is, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the legal deadline established to provide a response to the claims dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021, filed by SEÑOR1;

38. Therefore, it was imputed to PLAN RENTABLE that it would have incurred in two (2) infractions classified as serious, according to Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.33 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “Failure to comply with its functions or any of the other provisions contemplated in the regulations or what is provided or required by the SMV in the exercise of its functions, specifically for Participants”;

3.4 Discharges

39. In response to the charge made, through a written submission presented on 3 October 2023, PLAN RENTABLE states that when it spoke with SEÑOR1, it was indicated that the events that occurred should have been reported, with the purpose of having real knowledge of the denounced facts and especially knowing who is responsible for them, but to date more than 5 years have passed and until now no complaint has been filed for said fact;

40. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE points out that regarding the Notarial Letter sent to its represented company, as already explained, it was not in the case file, but they had indicated that the explanations provided were not only in physical form, but also verbally, and that several agreements were even reached, among which was the merger of the contracts terminated by SEÑOR1, with the purpose of not being harmed in a group liquidation, therefore: i) The collective contracts 6004-172-02 and 6002-081.01 were merged and became collective contract 6005-051.04; and ii) The collective contracts 6005-132.01, 6001-056.02, 6004-052-01 and 6004-016.02 were merged and became collective contract 6005-056.02.

41. PLAN RENTABLE points out that reaching said agreement is not done in a single day, but took a considerable time, in making proposals and reviewing the regulations to see how far it could go;

42. PLAN RENTABLE states that proof that what was indicated with the associate was settled is that in the contracts it now had in force and corresponded to the C.C. 6005-051.04 and CC 6005-056.02, it proceeded to auction with twenty-five (25) installments, in assembly N° 26, of group 6005 (Annex 1-A), resulting in it being awarded by auction and, furthermore, as first alternate, this for having reached the payment of higher installments;

43. In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE points out that if the dates are reviewed, it will coincide that despite having reached an agreement, said person insisted before the SMV that no agreement had been reached when this is not the case, because if the transfer letters are reviewed, they bear as date of legalization 29 September 2021 (PLAN RENTABLE attaches as Annex 1-B and Annex 1-C). Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE asks that if there was no conversation, or no agreement was reached with SEÑOR1, how is it that the processing of both contracts that had already been merged was carried out?;

44. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE reiterates that the date of award (by auction) be verified, since the SMV will be able to verify that said claim arises when payment of the auctioned installments is required and, not having them, it becomes the notarial letter that the SMV already has on file, which the Administrator requests be verified for better resolution;

45. For its part, PLAN RENTABLE points out that a verbal response was given to SEÑOR1, which was materialized with the merger of all its contracts and the transfer of others solely for the purpose that it could move forward and not as the SMV believes that no response was given to the requirements;

46. PLAN RENTABLE attaches the following evidence:

• Copy of the document called “Remates de la Asamblea N° 26 Grupo 6005” dated 21 January 2022, in which it details that SEÑOR1 auctioned with 25 installments in its contracts N° 051-04 and 056-02, respectively;

• Copy of the communication to PLAN RENTABLE from SEÑOR2 regarding the assignment of contractual position of Contract No. 6004.052.01, assigned by SEÑOR2 in favor of SEÑOR1, with certain date 29 September 2021;

• Communication to PLAN RENTABLE from SEÑOR CAVAGNERI regarding the assignment of contractual position of Contract No. 6004.172.02, assigned by SEÑOR2 in favor of SEÑOR1, with certain date 29 September 2021;

• Communication to PLAN RENTABLE by the company “Inversiones Liderando Peru S.A.C.” regarding an assignment of contractual position in favor of SEÑOR1, with certain date 29 September 2021; it should be noted that the contract number is not specified;

3.5 Evaluation of the defenses

47. This analysis must begin by stating that PLAN RENTABLE is a company supervised by the SMV, with operating authorization granted by Superintendente Resolution No. 057-2015- SMV/02 of 03 June 2015 and is aware of the regulations under which the collective funds system operates, and therefore has the obligation to act diligently as a collective funds management company;

48. In that sense, PLAN RENTABLE must review its procedures to verify the content of the communications received from its members and give them timely attention, in accordance with the established rules and thus avoid situations such as the one observed in this administrative sanctioning procedure;

49. In the present charge, SEÑOR1, by email dated 28 October 2020 addressed to Plan Rentable through CORREO3, attached a letter in which he stated that he could not attend the meeting scheduled on that date with PLAN RENTABLE, in which a response would be given to the facts that arose with the Supervisor and Salesperson, and therefore requested that the response be sent to SEÑOR1's email address;

50. Subsequently, on 20 May 2021, SEÑOR1 sent a notarial letter to PLAN RENTABLE reiterating his request for a prompt response to his claim made in person to the General Management and by email dated 28 October 2020;

51. On the other hand, PLAN RENTABLE has stated in its defenses that when it spoke with SEÑOR1, he was told that he should have reported the facts but that more than 5 years have passed to date and he has still not filed any complaint for said fact;

52. In this regard, it should be noted that this is not decisive to rebut the present imputation, since the present charge concerns the obligation of the former collective funds administrator to provide a response, within the legal term, to the claims of its members, in accordance with the provisions of article 68 of the REGLAMENTO and article 3 of the NORMAS APLICABLES A DENUNCIAS Y RECLAMOS;

53. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE has stated that with respect to the notarial letter, the explanations were provided not only physically, but also verbally and that several agreements were even reached, since SEÑOR1 had requested the merger of his contracts, which would have taken a considerable time, in making proposals and reviewing the regulations;

54. It has also stated that proof that the matter with the member was settled is that the contracts it had in force corresponded to contracts No. 6005-051.04 and No. 6005-056-02, in which it proceeded to auction with twenty-five (25) installments, resulting in it being awarded;

55. In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE requests that the award date be verified, with which, according to the Administrating company, it can be verified that said claim has an impact when payment of the auctioned installments is required; therefore, it attaches as evidence the document accrediting the award by auction of contracts No. 6005-051.04 and No. 6005-056-02, as well as various communications of agreements of assignment of contractual position of SEÑOR1 dated 29 September 2021;

56. With respect to what was stated in the preceding recitals, it should be noted that PLAN RENTABLE had a term of 30 calendar days from the date of submission of the claim, that is, with respect to the claim dated 28 October 2020, it had until 27 November 2020 to send a response to SEÑOR1, which in the present case has not been verified; likewise, with respect to the claim sent by notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, with receipt date 24 May 2021, PLAN RENTABLE had until 23 June 2021 to send a response to SEÑOR1, which in the present case has also not been verified;

57. In this sense, with respect to what was stated by the Administrating company, that the responses were provided not only physically, but also verbally and that several agreements were even reached; it should be noted that PLAN RENTABLE has not accredited that the aforementioned responses were provided to the complainant within the established legal term;

58. Likewise, with respect to what was stated by PLAN RENTABLE regarding the award by auction of contracts No. 6005-051.04 and No. 6005-056-02 and subsequent payment request; it should be noted that the award of the

PERÚ Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
SMV
Superintendency of the Market de Valores

“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"

SMV Deputy Superintendent Resolution No. 033-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 18 June 2024

Summary: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C., former Collective Funds Administrating Company, is sanctioned with a fine of 1UIT for having incurred two (2) serious infractions typified in Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to comply with the legal term established to provide a response to the member's claims.

Administrated parties
:
Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos.
Subject
:
Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No. : 2023040219

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

WHEREAS:

Administrative file No. 2023040219, Report No. 1488-2023-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance, as well as the defenses presented by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos1 ; 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. Facts

2. By document received on 13 May 2022, MR.1 2 , filed a complaint3 before the Superintendency of the Securities Market (hereinafter, SMV), against Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE) for allegedly being harmed by irregularities committed by the officials of the company PLAN

[1] By Superintendent Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02 dated 06 November 2023, it was resolved to revoke the operating authorization of Plan Rentable SAC as an Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos.

[2] The Annex attached to this resolution details the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong, and similarly, the email addresses.

[3] File No. 2022020899.

RENTABLE, since he states that in the month of November 2019 he acquired two (2) Certificates, through the figure of “assignment of contractual position”, which would have been brought to the attention of the General Manager of PLAN RENTABLE, having attached the bank deposits and audios of the conversations with the officials of PLAN RENTABLE, without having received, up to the date of the complaint, the possession and benefits of the Certificates in question, which he states would be harming him economically, emotionally and causing a series of personal and commercial damages, such as not being able to reinvest and generate movements in his business, such as not belonging to a group, nor being able to participate in the assemblies, awards and auctions. In this sense, in his complaint he requests the delivery of the two (2) certificates that he acquired by assignment of contractual position from their owners, or failing that, he requests to recognize and compensate the patrimonial and immediate consequences caused by the administrative infractions in which PLAN RENTABLE has incurred;

3. In his complaint MR.1 specifies, among others, that in the personal meeting he had with the general manager of PLAN RENTABLE and his assistant that occurred between 26 or 27 October 2020, opportunity in which, according to the complainant, he handed him directly in loose sheets the detail of the events that occurred and a copy of the bank deposits, as well as the audios and CD, in which the days and hours of the calls between the officials of PLAN RENTABLE are detailed, as well as the amounts deposited and delivered by the complainant, the indication of the administrative actions that would be carried out in order to complete the transfer by Assignment of the two (2) Certificates, having committed to respond in the following days; however, MR.1 states that despite the time elapsed, he has not had any response;

4. MR.1 attaches, among others, as part of his complaint:

• Screenshot of the email sent to CORREO3, with subject “Communication to the Attorney-in-Fact of Plan Rentable” dated 28 October 2020, in which a letter dated 28 October 2020 addressed to the general manager is attached;

• Copy of the letter dated 28 October 2020, addressed to the general manager of the former administrator, signed by the complainant, by which he states that for personal reasons he will not be able to attend the meeting scheduled for that day at his offices, in which they would give him a response to the events that occurred with the supervisor and the seller who acted on behalf of his represented; and, requests a response to CORREO4;

• Notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, addressed to the general manager of PLAN RENTABLE, with subject “Recognition of payments for transfer of certificates and delivery of benefits”, by which he reiterates a prompt response to his claim made in person to the General Management and later by email dated 28 October 2020, granting them a non-extendable term of seventy-two (72) hours to recognize and compensate the patrimonial consequences caused to the detriment of the complainant;

• Notarial letter dated 12 January 2022, addressed to the referred general manager, with subject “Registration and delivery of two (2) certificates acquired by assignment from their owners”, by which he reiterates his request to deliver the two (2) Certificates that he acquired by Assignment from their owners, having complied with the corresponding payment, for which he grants them a maximum and non-extendable term of

SMV Superintendency of the Securities Market

Ministry of Economy and Finance

PERU

Page 3 of 15

seventy-two (72) hours to recognize and compensate the direct and immediate patrimonial consequences caused to the detriment of the complainant;

• Carta notarial de fecha cierta 26 de enero de 2022, dirigida al SEÑOR1, mediante la cual señala PLAN RENTABLE, entre otros temas, que los abonos debieron haber sido realizados a la cuenta de la empresa, es por ello que no pueden reconocer los mismos; y, que si desea que le indiquen como va supuestamente el trámite de compra de algún contrato, debe indicar cuál es el nombre de la persona que le vendió dicho contrato o en su defecto el número del contrato para darle los alcances de dicho requerimiento;

  5. By Official Letter No. 2419-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 20 May 2022, the SMV forwarded the aforementioned complaint to PLAN RENTABLE so that it may submit the corresponding comments, as well as the required documentation and any additional information and/or documentation it deems pertinent;

  6. By document received on 1 June 2022, PLAN RENTABLE, among other aspects, requested an additional term of seven (7) business days in order to attach the corresponding documentation;

  7. By Official Letter No. 2899-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 2 June 2022, PLAN RENTABLE was granted an additional extension of seven (7) business days to submit the comments it deems appropriate;

  8. On 14 June 2022, PLAN RENTABLE responded to the request made by the SMV; among other aspects, regarding the response to the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, the former collective fund administrator requested that the SMV require the complainant to provide the Notarial Letter with the receipt stamp showing it was received by PLAN RENTABLE, since the one attached by the complainant is not the one that was processed, proof of which is that the recipient and the date of receipt by the Administrator are not visible, this in order to be able to respond to what is required;

  9. By email dated 9 August 2022 (hereinafter, CORREO1), the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance (hereinafter, IGCP) requested from SEÑOR1 at the email address CORREO4, among others, the following: Copy of the notarial letters dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021, showing the stamp or receipt stamp by the company PLAN RENTABLE;

  10. By Official Letter No. 5325-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 24 October 2022 (hereinafter OFICIO 5325), the IGCP again requested from SEÑOR1 the information requested by CORREO1;

  11. On 23 March 2023, in response to CORREO 1 and OFICIO 5325, SEÑOR1 stated, among other aspects, that regarding the letter dated 28 October 2020, it is a simple letter that he sent to the company PLAN RENTABLE, which was sent on 28 October 2020 to CORREO3 and that he never received any response. On the other hand, regarding the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, the complainant states that it was processed by the Notary Office of Dr. Alfredo Zambrano Rodríguez on 20 May 2021 and that the aforementioned notarial letter was sent because several months had already passed since he had a first meeting with the general manager of PLAN RENTABLE, having been told that the response to his claim should be sent to SEÑOR1's personal email, so he decided to send a new letter but this time via notarial means, granting a term of seventy-two (72) hours for it to acknowledge and compensate the financial consequences to his investment, directly caused by the supervisor and salesperson, detailing each of the steps, meetings and payments made by the complainant to the aforementioned workers, who at all times acted on behalf of the company PLAN RENTABLE;

  12. By email dated 13 April 2023 (hereinafter, CORREO2), the IGCP reiterated to SEÑOR1 the submission of the copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021 showing the stamp or receipt stamp by the company PLAN RENTABLE;

  13. On 14 April 2023, SEÑOR1 responded to CORREO 2 by presenting a copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021 with the receipt stamp of PLAN RENTABLE dated 24 May 2021;

  14. By means of Oficio N° 1694-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 18 April 2023, the IGCP forwarded to PLAN RENTABLE the copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, with receipt date 24 May 2021, and requested the response to the aforementioned notarial letter, as well as its comments and/or additional documentation it deems pertinent;

  15. By means of Oficio N° 3077-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 05 July 2023 (hereinafter, OFICIO 3077), the IGCP reiterated to PLAN RENTABLE what was requested by means of OFICIO 1694 and requested additional information;

  16. On 12 July 2023, PLAN RENTABLE responded to what was requested by means of OFICIO 3077;

  17. By means of Oficio N° 3435-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 27 July 2023 (hereinafter, OFICIO 3435), the IGCP requested additional information from SEÑOR1;

  18. It should be noted that SEÑOR1 did not comply with submitting what was requested by means of OFICIO 3435;

  19. By means of Oficio N° 4358-2023-SMV/10.3 notified on 22 September 2023, an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against PLAN RENTABLE, charging it with a charge for having failed to comply with the provisions of article 68° of the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and their Management Companies, approved by SMV Resolution N° 020-2014-SMV-01 (hereinafter, REGULATION) and article 3° of the “Rules applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market - SMV” approved by SMV Resolution N° 006-2012-SMV-01 (hereinafter, RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS), that is, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the legal term established to provide a response to the claims, dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021, filed by SEÑOR1.

  20. By means of a written document dated 3 October 2023, PLAN RENTABLE submitted the corresponding defenses;

  21. The charge filed against PLAN RENTABLE as well as the defenses submitted by the aforementioned company have been evaluated in Report No. 1488-2023-SMV/10.3 issued by the IGCP, which has been brought to the attention of this Deputy Superintendency;

  22. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2., of the Preliminary Title and in Article 248, paragraph 2, of the Single Ordered Text of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS and its amendments (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), through Official Letter No. 4965-2023-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution pertains was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review;

II. Issues to be determined

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

a. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for not having complied with the legal deadline established to provide a response to the claim dated 28 October 2020, filed by the member.

b. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.33 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with the legal deadline established to provide a response to the claim dated 20 May 2021, filed by the member.

c. Whether or not it is appropriate to impose a sanction on PLAN RENTABLE;

III. Analysis

3.1 Applicable regulations

24. Regarding the resolution of claims, Article 68 of the REGULATION provides the following:

“Article 68.- Resolution of claims The Administrator must have personnel responsible for attending to the claims of the Members, subject to the provisions of the Norms applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market - SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV-01, or the norm that replaces it.”;

25. In that sense, Article 3 of the NORMS APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS establishes the procedure for handling claims:

“Article 3.- Handling of claims by legal entities authorized by the SMV Without prejudice to compliance with the norms that determine the direct handling of claims that end consumers may file and the obligation to have a Complaints Book, within the framework of the provisions of Articles 24 and 150 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code, Law No. 29571, the legal entities to which the SMV has granted operating authorization are obliged to directly handle any claim by their clients regarding the services they provide, within a maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of submission of the respective claim. This period may be extended for an equal period when the nature of the claim justifies it, a situation that is brought to the attention of the claimant before the end of the initial period. If the claimant requires it, the response must be made in writing.

(…).” (Underline added);

3.2 Charge

26. According to the regulatory framework, the deadline for the resolution of claims of the members by PLAN RENTABLE is thirty (30) calendar days from their receipt, and may be extended for an equal period when the nature of the claim justifies it, after communication to the member;

27. The SEÑOR1 has stated that PLAN RENTABLE has not provided a response to his notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, in which he reiterates his request for a prompt response to his claim made in person to the General Management and by email dated 28 October 2020, granting them a non-extendable period of seventy-two (72) hours to acknowledge and compensate the patrimonial consequences caused to the detriment of the complainant;

28. Likewise, in the aforementioned notarial letter, the SEÑOR1 details the facts described in his complaint;

29. Regarding the email dated 28 October 2020 mentioned in the notarial letter, the SEÑOR1, with his complaint, attached the email addressed to PLAN RENTABLE at CORREO3 at 8:58 hours, in which he attaches a letter stating that he cannot attend the meeting scheduled for that date, in which they would give him a response to the events that occurred between the supervisor and the seller, and therefore requests that they provide a response to his email;

30. Through Official Letter No. 2419-2022-SMV/10.3, the SMV forwards the complaint of the SEÑOR1 to PLAN RENTABLE, so that it submits its comments and requests, among others:

d. Attach the response to the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021 sent to your represented company that the SEÑOR1 attaches in his complaint;

31. In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE in its response to the referred official letter requested that the IGCP require the complainant to provide the proof of receipt of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, since the notarial letter attached in the complaint does not allow verifying the date of its receipt;

32. In this sense, the IGCP requested the complainant through CORREO 1, OFICIO 5325 and CORREO 2, a copy of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, showing the stamp or proof of receipt by the company PLAN RENTABLE;

33. Therefore, the SEÑOR1 through his written submission dated 14 April 2023, has presented the proof of receipt of the notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, with the date of receipt by PLAN RENTABLE on 24 May 2021;

34. In view of this, the IGCP, through Official Letter No. 1694-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on 18 April 2023, brought the aforementioned notarial letter to the attention of PLAN RENTABLE, so that it could submit the corresponding response, as well as its comments and other information and/or additional documentation it deems pertinent;

35. Through OFFICIAL LETTER 3077, the IGCP reiterated to PLAN RENTABLE what was requested through OFFICIAL LETTER 1694 and requested additional information;

36. In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE, through a document dated 12 July 2023, has stated that the Notarial Letter was not in the case file, but that the explanations provided were not only in physical form, but also verbally; and, furthermore, that on 18 January 2022, a new notarial letter was sent to PLAN RENTABLE, which again recounted the denounced facts, which is why a response was sent on 26 January 2022;

37. Considering the foregoing, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the provisions of article 68 of the REGULATION and article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, that is, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the legal deadline established to provide a response to the claims, dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021, filed by MR.1;

38. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE was charged with having incurred two (2) infractions classified as serious, according to Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.33 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “Not fulfilling its functions or any of the other provisions contemplated in the regulations or what is provided or required by the SMV in the exercise of its functions, specifically for Participants”;

3.4 Discharges

39. In response to the charge made, through a document submitted on 3 October 2023, PLAN RENTABLE states that when it spoke with MR.1, he was told that he should have reported the events that occurred, this in order to have real knowledge of the denounced facts and especially to know who is responsible for them, but to date more than 5 years have passed and he has not filed any complaint for said fact;

40. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE points out that regarding the Notarial Letter sent to its represented party, as already explained, it was not in the case file, but they had indicated that the explanations provided were not only in physical form, but also verbally, and that several agreements were even reached, among which was the merger of the contracts resolved by MR.1, this in order not to be harmed in a group liquidation, therefore: i) Collective contracts 6004-172-02 and 6002-081.01 were merged and became collective contract 6005-051.04; and ii) Collective contracts 6005-132.01, 6001-056.02, 6004-052-01 and 6004-016.02 were merged and became collective contract 6005-056.02.

41. PLAN RENTABLE points out that reaching said agreement is not done in a single day, but took a considerable time, in making proposals and reviewing the regulations to see how far they could go;

42. PLAN RENTABLE states that proof that the matter with the associate was settled is that in the contracts it now had in force and corresponded to the C.C. 6005-051.04 and CC 6005-056.02, it proceeded to auction with twenty-five (25) installments, in assembly No. 26, of group 6005 (Annex 1-A), resulting in it being awarded by auction and, furthermore, as first alternate, this for having reached the payment of the highest installments;

43. In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE points out that if the dates are reviewed, it will coincide that despite having reached an agreement, said person insisted before the SMV that no agreement had been reached when this is not the case, because if the transfer letters are reviewed, they bear as legalization date 29 September 2021 (PLAN RENTABLE attaches as Annex 1-B and

Page 8 of 15

Annex 1-C). Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE asks that if there was no conversation, or no agreement was reached with MR.1, how is it that the processing of both contracts that had already been merged was carried out?;

44. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE reiterates that the date of award (by auction) be verified, since the SMV will be able to verify that said claim arises when the payment of the auctioned installments is required and, not having them, leads to the notarial letter that the SMV already has on file, which the Administrator requests be verified for better resolution;

45. For its part, PLAN RENTABLE points out that a response was given verbally to MR.1, which was materialized with the merger of all his contracts and the transfer of others only so that he could move forward and not as the SMV believes that no response was given to the requirements;

46. PLAN RENTABLE attaches the following evidence:

• Copy of the document called “Auctions of Assembly No. 26 Group 6005” dated 21 January 2022, in which it details that MR.1 auctioned with 25 installments in his contracts No. 051-04 and 056-02, respectively;

• Copy of the communication to PLAN RENTABLE from MR.2 regarding the assignment of contractual position of Contract No. 6004.052.01, assigned by MR.2 in favor of MR.1, with certain date 29 September 2021;

• Communication to PLAN RENTABLE from MR. CAVAGNERI regarding the assignment of contractual position of Contract No. 6004.172.02, assigned by MR.2 in favor of MR.1, with certain date 29 September 2021;

• Communication to PLAN RENTABLE from the company “Inversiones Liderando Peru S.A.C.” regarding an assignment of contractual position in favor of MR.1, with certain date 29 September 2021; it should be noted that the contract number is not specified;

3.5 Evaluation of the discharges

47. This analysis must begin by stating that PLAN RENTABLE is a company supervised by the SMV, with authorization to operate granted by Superintendente Resolution No. 057-2015-SMV/02 of 03 June 2015, and it is aware of the regulations under which the collective funds system operates, and therefore it is obliged to act diligently as a collective funds management company;

48. In that regard, PLAN RENTABLE must review its procedures to verify the content of the communications received from its members and give them timely attention, in accordance with the established rules, and thus avoid situations such as the one observed in this administrative sanctioning proceeding;

49. In this charge, SEÑOR1, by email dated 28 October 2020 addressed to Plan Rentable at CORREO3, attached a letter in which he stated that he could not attend the meeting scheduled on that date with PLAN RENTABLE, at which a response would be given to the events that occurred with the Supervisor and Salesperson, and therefore requested that the response be sent to SEÑOR1's email address;

50. Thereafter, on 20 May 2021, SEÑOR1 sent a notarial letter to PLAN RENTABLE reiterating his request for a prompt response to his claim made in person to the General Management and by email dated 28 October 2020;

51. On the other hand, PLAN RENTABLE has stated in its defense that when it spoke with SEÑOR1, he was told that he should have reported the events, but that more than 5 years have passed to date and he has still not filed any complaint for that event;

52. In this regard, it must be noted that this is not decisive to rebut the present imputation, since this charge concerns the obligation of the former collective funds administrator to provide a response, within the legal term, to the claims of its members, in accordance with the provisions of article 68 of the REGLAMENTO and article 3 of the NORMAS APLICABLES A DENUNCIAS Y RECLAMOS;

53. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE has stated that, with respect to the notarial letter, the explanations were provided not only in person but also verbally, and that several agreements were even reached, since SEÑOR1 allegedly requested the merger of his contracts, which allegedly took a considerable amount of time, in making proposals and reviewing the regulations;

54. It has also stated that proof that the matter with the member was settled is that the contracts it had in force corresponded to contracts No. 6005-051.04 and No. 6005-056-02, in which it proceeded to auction with twenty-five (25) installments, resulting in the award;

55. Accordingly, PLAN RENTABLE requests that the award date be verified, by which, according to the Management Company, it can be verified that said claim arises when payment of the auctioned installments is required of him; therefore, it attaches as evidence the document accrediting the award by auction of contracts No. 6005-051.04 and No. 6005-056-02, as well as various communications of agreements for the assignment of SEÑOR1's contractual position dated 29 September 2021;

56. With respect to what was stated in the preceding recitals, it must be noted that PLAN RENTABLE had a term of 30 calendar days from the date of submission of the claim, that is, with regard to the claim dated 28 October 2020, it had until 27 November 2020 to send a response to SEÑOR1, which in this case has not been verified; likewise, with regard to the claim sent by notarial letter dated 20 May 2021, received on 24 May 2021, PLAN RENTABLE had until 23 June 2021 to send a response to SEÑOR1, which in this case has also not been verified;

57. Accordingly, with respect to the statement by the Management Company that the responses were provided not only in person but also verbally, and that several agreements were even reached, it must be noted that PLAN RENTABLE has not proven that the aforementioned responses were provided to the complainant within the established legal term;

58. Likewise, with respect to what was stated by PLAN RENTABLE regarding the award by auction of contracts No. 6005-051.04 and No. 6005-056-02 and the subsequent payment demand, it must be noted that the award of the aforementioned contracts, according to the evidence submitted by the Management Company, is dated 21 January 2022, which is not decisive to prove that PLAN RENTABLE complied with responding to the claims within the legal term established in accordance with the regulations previously indicated;

59. Finally, with respect to the communications of assignment of contractual position dated 29 September 2021, submitted as evidence by PLAN RENTABLE, they do not in any way prove that the Management Company complied with responding, within the legal term, to the claims submitted by SEÑOR1;

60. Therefore, it has been established in the record that PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with providing a response to the claims dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021 received by PLAN RENTABLE on 24 May 2021, within the established legal term, in accordance with the provisions of article 68 of the REGLAMENTO and article 3 of the NORMAS APLICABLES A DENUNCIAS Y RECLAMOS;

61. Consequently, PLAN RENTABLE incurred two (2) infractions classified as serious, in accordance with Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.33 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, according to which the following constitutes an infraction: “Failure to comply with its functions or any of the other provisions contemplated in the regulations or with what is provided or required by the SMV in the exercise of its functions, specifically with respect to Participants”;

IV. Evaluation of the sanction

62. In accordance with Article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies and Article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS; in accordance with Article 248, numeral 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG and Article 257 of the aforementioned normative body; the administrative sanctions imposed must take into account the criteria set forth by Decree Law No. 21907, the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS and the TUO OF THE LPAG;

63. Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) Prior record of the offender; b) Recidivism; c) Circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) Economic harm caused and its impact on the market; e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; f) Probability of detection of the infraction; g) Severity of the harm to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; h) Existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct;

64. In this regard, in order to reconcile the criteria of the TUO OF THE LPAG with those set forth in Decree Law No. 21907 and the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, and so that these criteria are adequately considered so that their assessment observes the principle of reasonableness and the sanction to be imposed is appropriate to them, the following criteria are analyzed;

65. Regarding the prior record of the offender, in accordance with the provisions of Article 25, literal a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, final sanctions imposed by the SMV within the period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned constitute prior record. The aforementioned article specifies that the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered prior record;

66. In this regard, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that PLAN RENTABLE has the following final sanction;

No.	Resolution	Resolved	Finality
i	Deputy Superintendent Resolution SMV No. - 105-2017-SMV/104	PLAN RENTABLE is sanctioned with five (5) warnings and a fine of 6 UIT, for having incurred six (6) infractions of a minor nature classified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its amendatory norms (hereinafter OLD SANCTIONS REGULATIONS), for failing to submit periodic information within the term established in the applicable regulations.	23/11/2017
ii	Deputy Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 007-2019-SMV/105	PLAN RENTABLE is sanctioned with a fine amounting to 12 UIT, for having incurred seven (7) infractions of a serious nature classified in Annex XIX, numeral 2, subsection 2.12 of the OLD SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, for failing to submit Independent Annual Compliance Reports, Semi-annual Compliance Officer Reports and Annual Special Audit Plans within the terms established in the Norms for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. It should be noted that an appeal was filed against said resolution, which was declared founded in part, by Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 080-2020-SMV/10, of 24 August 2020, which confirmed three (3) serious infractions related to the submission of the Independent Annual Compliance Report and Annual Special Audit Plan; left without effect four (4) infractions related to the submission of the Semi-annual Compliance Officer Report and Independent Annual Compliance Report; and reduced the fine imposed on Plan Rentable from 12 UIT to 5.14 UIT.	25/08/2020

67. With regard to recidivism for the commission of the same infringement, the final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned is taken into account. Within this framework, it must be stated that PLAN RENTABLE has no sanctions within the aforementioned period for the commission of the same infringement under analysis in this administrative sanctioning proceeding, and therefore recidivism is not established;

68. With regard to the circumstances of the commission of the infringements, it must be mentioned that PLAN RENTABLE, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, is aware of the rules governing the collective fund system and, in that sense, of the rules obliging it to attend to complaints filed by its members within the established period; however, PLAN RENTABLE violated the provisions of Article 68 of the REGULATION and Article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS by failing to provide a response, within the established period, to SEÑOR1 regarding the complaints dated 28 October 2020 and 20 May 2021;

69. With regard to the above, it must be indicated that, according to what was stated by SEÑOR1, through the complaint of 20 May 2021, the request made in the complaint of 28 October 2020 is reiterated, so that the purpose of the

[4] Notified on 31 October 2017.

[5] Notified on 12 March 2019.

complaint in both cases would be the same. Likewise, in the letter of the latter date, SEÑOR1 indicates that he was summoned by PLAN RENTABLE to attend to his complaint; however, he was unable to attend, so in view of this eventuality on his part, he requested that a response be given to CORREO4. Likewise, it must be considered that on 29 September 2021, that is, after the filing of the second complaint, SEÑOR1's contracts were merged, and on the basis of this, on 21 January 2022 he carried out the auction of 25 quotas; therefore, these circumstances must be considered for the purposes of determining the sanction;

70. With regard to the economic damage caused and the impact on the market, it has not been evidenced that the infringements committed by PLAN RENTABLE have had an impact on the market, nor produced a concrete quantifiable economic damage in the latter; however, these facts affect the confidence of members or potential members in the collective fund system;

71. With regard to the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement, it must be pointed out that it has not been proven that PLAN RENTABLE obtained a benefit directly related to the infringement under analysis in this administrative proceeding;

72. With regard to the probability of detection of the infringement, it must be indicated that the facts constituting the infringement committed by PLAN RENTABLE were evidenced when verifying compliance with the applicable regulations for the performance of its functions, based on the facts set out by SEÑOR1 in the complaint filed against the management company; therefore, the probability of detection of the infringement was low;

73. As to the seriousness of the damage to the public interest and/or the protected legal interest, it has not been possible to prove that PLAN RENTABLE's conduct in the commission of the infringements under analysis in this sanctioning proceeding caused determinable damage to the public interest;

74. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 68 of the REGULATION, the management company must have personnel responsible for attending to the complaints of Members, whose maximum period for attendance, in accordance with Article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, is 30 calendar days from the date of filing of the respective complaint. In this sense, and in order to avoid possible harm to its clients, the Management Company must establish procedures to verify the communications received from its members and attend to them, in accordance with the established rules;

75. Thus, bearing in mind that collective fund management companies are obliged to act in strict compliance with the regulations applicable to them, such as the provisions established in the REGULATION and in the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, for the protection of the collective fund system, by transgressing such regulations, they affect the legal interest relating to the integrity of the market, that is, of the collective fund system, and in particular affect the confidence of members or potential members in the collective fund system;

76. With regard to the existence or not of intent on the part of the infringer, it has been proven that the Management Company failed to send a response to the complaints dated 28 October 2020 and 24 May 2021 within the legally established period;

77. From the foregoing, the lack of due diligence of PLAN RENTABLE towards its members is demonstrated; therefore, it is not acceptable that a Collective Fund Management Company such as PLAN RENTABLE, with several years of operation in the market, can disregard compliance with the essential rules under which the Collective Fund System operates;

78. In addition to the above, it is necessary to analyze the exculpatory and mitigating circumstances of liability established in Article 257 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exculpatory conditions of liability established in Articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

79. With respect to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infringements, the offender's contribution to their clarification and the rectification made after their request, established in Article 257°, item 2, subsections a) and b) of the TUO of the LPAG and in Article 26°, letters a), b) and c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be noted that PLAN RENTABLE has not acknowledged the commission of the infringements; however, it has contributed to the clarification of the facts through the defenses submitted;

80. On the other hand, it is not observed that in the present case any of the circumstances constituting conditions exempting from liability set forth in Article 27° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION have been configured;

81. From the foregoing, it is concluded that PLAN RENTABLE has incurred in the commission of two (2) infringements classified as serious, in accordance with Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.33 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for which it is appropriate to impose on PLAN RENTABLE a sanction corresponding to the infringements classified as serious in accordance with Article 38° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; therefore, it would be appropriate to apply a fine greater than 25 UIT and up to 50 UIT or the prohibition of the formation of new groups;

82. However, taking into account the sanction criteria analyzed, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in Article 248°, item 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG which states that the sanctions to be applied shall be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infringement, it must also be considered that PLAN RENTABLE has collaborated in the clarification of the facts, that the company is not a repeat offender with respect to the infringement evaluated, that an impact on the market has not been proven nor has a concrete quantifiable harm been produced and that it has not been evidenced that PLAN RENTABLE has had an illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringements; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, this Deputy Superintendency considers that it is appropriate to impose on PLAN RENTABLE a sanction lower than that provided for serious infringements, in accordance with the provisions of Article 39° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

In accordance with the provisions of Article 32°, item 16, of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments.

RESOLVES:

Article 1º.- To declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos has incurred in one (1) infringement classified as serious as established in Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with the legal deadline established to provide a response to the complaint dated 28 October 2020, filed by the associate.

Article 2º.- To declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos has incurred in one (1) infringement classified as serious as established in Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with the legal deadline established to provide a response to the complaint dated 20 May 2021, filed by the associate.

Article 3.- To sanction Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C., formerly Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos, with a fine of 1 UIT in force at the time of effective payment of the fine for the commission of the infractions referred to in articles 1 and 2 of this resolution.

Article 4.- 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 or appeal before the same, within a period of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

Article 5.- In the event that this resolution is not challenged by means of a motion for reconsideration or appeal within fifteen (15) business days of notification and becomes final, it must be published on the SMV Institutional Page on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State, 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 6.- To transcribe this resolution to Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C., formerly Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos, and to SEÑOR1.

Register, communicate and publish.

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision