Superintendencia Adjunta SMV Resolution Nº 065-2024-SMV/11

Lima, 15 October 2024

Sumilla: Sanction Qualitas Compañía de Seguros S.A. with 1.575 UIT for having incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature, classified in subsection 3.1 numeral 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation.

Administered : QUALITAS COMPAÑÍA DE SEGUROS S.A.
Matter
: Single-instance Administrative Sanctioning Procedure administrative Main Type : Subsection 3.1 of numeral 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation MINOR INFRACTION File No. : 2024008738 The Deputy Superintendent (e) of Market Conduct Supervision

WHEREAS:

Administrative file No. 2024008738, containing the administrative sanctioning procedure initiated by the General Intendancy of Conduct Compliance of the Superintendency of the Securities Market – SMV (hereinafter, the IGCC), against Qualitas Compañía de Seguros S.A. (hereinafter, the Issuer); as well as Report No. 1000-2024-SMV/11.2 (hereinafter, the Report), issued by the IGCC;

CONSIDERING:

I. FUNCTION AND COMPETENCE OF THE SASCM

1. That, the IGCC —instructing body of the administrative sanctioning procedures (hereinafter, the PAS) referred to in the present case—, has brought to the attention of the Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision of the SMV (hereinafter, SASCM), the PAS of administrative file No. 2024008738 in order for it to issue a decision as

Electronic document fi digitally signed within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Fi rmas and Digital Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) fi rma( s) can be verified at https://apps. fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

sanctioning body of single administrative instance for the case of infractions regarding timeliness in the presentation of periodic and occasional information. In this way, the SASCM assumes competence in observance of the exercise of the supervision function and the sanctioning power of the Superintendency of the Securities Market – SMV, established by the Single Concorded Text of its Organic Law, Decree Law No. 26126 (hereinafter, LOSMV) and the Single Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF-11 (hereinafter, TUO LMV); as well as by the provisions of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, Sanctions Regulation); and in articles 42 and 43 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the Superintendency of the Securities Market – SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF (hereinafter, ROF-SMV), in the sense that it is a specific function of the SASCM, to impose sanctions in single administrative instance for the commission of infractions whose compliance control corresponds to the referred Deputy Superintendency. Likewise, the SASCM has the powers to issue corrective measures aimed at reverting the situation altered by the commission of the infraction;

II. FACTS, CHARGE, DISCHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS

2.1 Fact

2. That, it was evaluated whether the Issuer complied with timely communicating its material events;

2.2 Charge

3. That, from the verification of the information on the timely communication of material events, it was observed that by board session of 27 February 2023, the call to the General Shareholders' Meeting to be held on 29 March 2023 was agreed, an agreement that should have been communicated on the same day of its approval; however, it was reported extemporaneously on 14 March 2023. (File No. 2023010908);

4. That, by Official Letter No. 1015-2024-SMV/11.2 of 02 April 2024 (hereinafter, the Charge Letter), the IGCC imputed to the Issuer the commission of the infraction classified in subsection 3.1 of numeral 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation;

5. That, this non-compliance is classified in numeral 3.1 of subsection 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation;

2.3 Discharges and allegations

6. That, the Issuer exercising its right of defense, by writing of 10 April 2024 stated that it recognizes the commission of the infraction, in accordance with the provisions of literal a) of article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation;

7. That, however, the Issuer requests that the sanction of reprimand be applied and for this it develops the criteria corresponding to said sanction, which are briefly summarized below and will be analyzed further

[1] By Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF, published on 10 February 2023 in the Official Gazette El Peruano, the Single Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861, was approved.

forward:

(i) Regarding the impact on market transparency, the Issuer states that it has been minimal and that the proper functioning of the market has not been affected.

(ii) In relation to the absence of specific harm caused to investors, the Issuer states that as of 29 March 2023, the Issuer had only two (02) shareholders. The Issuer adds that it is registered in the RPMV, in accordance with article 29 of the Ley General del Sistema Financiero y del Sistema de Seguros y Orgánica de la Superintendencia de Banca, Seguros y AFP, Ley N° 26702, and not by corporate decision.

(iii) Regarding the antecedents and recidivism, the Issuer indicates that it does have a sanction antecedent, Resolución de Superintendencia Adjunta SMV N° 058-2022-SMV/11 of 07 June 2022, for an infraction classified as one of a serious nature typified in subsection 2.10, numeral 2 of Annex I of the Reglamento de Sanciones, for not communicating as a material fact, the start date of the audit work for the 2020 fiscal year. However, the Issuer requests that it be taken into account that in said administrative sanctioning procedure, the Superintendencia Adjunta de Supervisión de Conductas de Mercados considered that the fine applicable to a serious infraction was excessive and was not proportional to the non-compliance, and therefore proposed that a fine corresponding to a minor infraction be imposed, in accordance with article 25 of the Reglamento de Sanciones. With regard to recidivism, the Issuer states that it is not a repeat offender with respect to the infraction that has been imputed to it.

(iv) Finally, in relation to obtaining benefits from the administrative infraction, as well as the existence or not of intentionality in the commission of the infraction, the Issuer indicates that it has not obtained any benefit and that the non-compliance was not carried out willfully, but by negligence;

8. That, by Decreto Supremo N° 004-2019-JUS, the Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley del Procedimiento Administrativo General – Ley N° 27444 (hereinafter, TUO de la LPAG) was approved, which contains common rules for the actions of the administrative function of the State and regulates all administrative procedures developed in the entities, including special procedures. Likewise, numeral 3) of article 248 of the TUO de la LPAG, sets out the criteria regarding the graduation of the sanction: (a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, (b) The probability of detection of the infraction, (c) The severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, (d) The economic harm caused, (e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution that sanctioned the first infraction became final, (f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and, (g) The existence or not of intentionality in the conduct of the offender;

9. That, the charge formulated, the defenses and the criteria regarding the graduation of the sanction have been subject to evaluation in the Report, which has been brought to the attention of the SASCM;

10. That, in observance of the provisions of numeral 5 of article 255 of the TUO de la LPAG, by Oficio N° 4069-2024-SMV/11 of 16 September 2024, the Report was sent to the Issuer so that it may formulate its arguments

Electronic document di gitally signed within the framework of Ley N° 27269, Ley de Fi forms and Digital Certificates, its Reglamento and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) fi rma( s) can be verified at https://apps. fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

within the term of five (5) business days; which to date have not been submitted;

III. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

11. That, in the present PAS it corresponds to determine the following:

(i) Whether the Issuer incurred or not in the infraction indicated in the Oficio de Cargo and Report.

(ii) Whether or not it corresponds to impose a sanction on the Issuer;

IV. ANALYSIS

4.1 Applicable regulations

12. That, article 30 of the Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley del Mercado de Valores, Decreto Legislativo N° 861, approved by Decreto Supremo N° 020-2023-EF (TUO de la LMV) states: “The registration of a certain security or issuance program entails for its issuer the obligation to inform the SMV and, where appropriate, the respective stock exchange or entity responsible for the conduct of the centralized mechanism, of the material facts, including ongoing negotiations, about itself, the security and the offer made thereof, as well as to disclose such facts in a truthful, sufficient and timely manner. The information must be provided to said institutions and disclosed as soon as the fact occurs or the issuer becomes aware of it, as the case may be.” (Underline added);

13. That, numeral 9.1 of article 9 of the Reglamento de Hechos de Importancia e Información Reservada, approved by Resolución SMV N° 005-2014-SMV/01 (Reglamento de Hechos de Importancia), indicates: “The Issuer must report its material fact as soon as such fact occurs or the Issuer becomes aware of it, and in no case beyond the day on which it has occurred or has been known. (…)”

14. According to numeral 1 of Annex 1 of the Reglamento de Hechos de Importancia, the following may qualify as material facts: “1. Call to shareholders' meeting, creditors' meeting or bondholders' assembly, indicating the respective agenda and the documentation that is available to the shareholders, creditors and bondholders, as the case may be, as well as the resolutions adopted therein.” (Underline added);

15. That, for the purposes of determining the possible sanction, this infraction is typified in subsection 3.1 of numeral 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation, which states that it constitutes a minor infraction: “Submit outside the established period, 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 audited individual or consolidated financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, material events and annual reports.” (Underline added);

16. That, in accordance with article 35 of the Sanctions Regulation, said infraction is sanctionable with a warning or a fine of no less than one (1) UIT and up to twenty-five (25) UIT;

Electronically signed document digitally signed within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) signature ( s) can be verified at https://apps. signature peru.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

4.2 Case evaluation

17. That, in file No. 2024008738 containing the documentation of this PAS, it is noted that through Memorandum No. 1924-2023-SMV/11.1 of 23 May 2023 (File No. 2023021358), the General Superintendence of Conduct Supervision (hereinafter, IGSC) —an organ of the SMV that has among its functions and powers the supervision of compliance with the rules applicable to issuers with securities registered in the RPMV—, forwarded to the IGCC the result of its evaluation, and specifically what refers to this case;

18. That, it must be borne in mind that the procedures and legal forms with which the IGSC conducts its inspection and/or supervision activity and upon concluding it with a report of indications of infraction, determine that its pronouncement or opinion on a specific supervision matter —which may even contain a decision, such as the adoption of corrective measures— is an opinion on the merits of the matter; it being necessary to specify that said opinion and the IGSC's report of indications of infraction is not binding for the IGCC, as established in the second paragraph of article 9 of the Sanctions Regulation2 3;

19. That, in this way, it is held that in the evaluation of the facts related to this PAS, two (2) other organs of the SMV, functionally independent from each other and from this Office, have intervened and participated prior to the issuance of this resolution; first the IGSC which in due course reported the indications of infraction through the aforementioned memorandum and then the IGCC which, as a result of its evaluation, formulated the Charge Letter and the Report; and at this point of the PAS it corresponds to the Office of the SASCM to issue a pronouncement containing its decision regarding the aforementioned charge, it being necessary to indicate that by the nature of the same, it will be a first instance administrative decision;

20. That, previously, it must be noted that through a writing dated 10 April 2024, the Issuer presented its defenses regarding the imputation formulated against it in this file;

21. That, the Issuer expressly and in writing acknowledges its responsibility for the commission of the infraction related to the late submission of the material event referring to the board meeting agreement of

[2] In article 245 of the TUO of the LPAG, the following are indicated as forms or modes in which the inspection activity could be concluded: 1) Record of conformity of the activity carried out by the administered; 2) Recommendation of improvements or corrections of the activity carried out by the administered; 3) The warning of the existence of non-compliances not susceptible to warrant the determination of administrative responsibilities; 4) The recommendation of the initiation of a procedure in order to determine the corresponding administrative responsibilities; 5) The adoption of corrective measures and 6) Other forms as established by special laws. 3 Article 9.- PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUPERVISION ACTIONS

[3] SUPERVISION (…) When said organs conclude that there are sufficient indications of possible administrative infractions, they forward the corresponding reports to the General Superintendences of Compliance, which determine whether or not to initiate a sanctioning administrative procedure. If applicable, the General Superintendences of Compliance may carry out additional inspections or investigations of the reported indications. In the case of possible infractions in the scope of the Regulation of the Activity of Participatory Financial Financing and its Managing Companies, the preliminary inquiries are carried out by the General Superintendence of Research and Innovation, a dependency that, if there are sufficient indications of possible administrative infractions, will determine whether or not to initiate a sanctioning administrative procedure. (…).

27 February 2023, by which the call to the General Shareholders' Meeting to be held on 29 March 2023 was agreed, an agreement that should have been communicated on the same day of its approval, that is, on 27 February 2023; however, it was reported late on 14 March 2023. (File No. 2023010908);

22. That, the Issuer acknowledges responsibility under the provisions of literal a) of numeral 2 of article 257 of the TUO of the LPAG and literal a) of article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation;

23. That, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Issuer requests that a reprimand be imposed as a sanction and for this purpose requests that the arguments summarized above be taken into account, which will be evaluated in the section in which the sanction criteria are analyzed in detail;

24. That, as of the date of this Resolution, the Issuer has not submitted arguments to the Report;

25. That, consequently, having proven the conduct constituting the infraction and determined the administrative responsibility of the Issuer, it is appropriate to analyze the proposed sanction in accordance with the provisions of the principle of reasonableness and the sanction criteria, considering that the Issuer has corrected the infraction after the letter of charges; which will be evaluated in the section on determination of the sanction;

V. DETERMINATION OF THE SANCTION

26. That, having determined the existence of administrative responsibility on the part of the Issuer, for the commission of one (1) infraction typified in subsection 3.1 of numeral 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation, which states that it constitutes a minor infraction:

“Submit outside 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 audited individual or consolidated financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, material events and annual reports.” (Underline added);

27. That, in accordance with article 35 of the Sanctions Regulation, said infraction is punishable with a reprimand or a fine of not less than one (01) UIT and up to twenty-five (25) UIT;

28. That, in order to analyze the corresponding sanction for this type of non-compliance, the Criteria applicable to the administrative sanctioning procedure for non-compliance with the rules regulating the submission of periodic or occasional information, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV/01, in force at the time of the commission of the infractions (hereinafter, Special Sanction Criteria), must be taken into account;

29. That, however, it should be noted that by article 1 of Resolution No. 007-2023-SMV/01 of 04 September 2023, the Graduality Regime of Sanctions for late submission of financial information, annual report and material events (hereinafter, New Graduality Regime of Sanctions) was approved, whose article 4 provided that it would be in force as of

as of 01 January 2024; and in article 2 of said Resolution the Special Sanction Criteria are repealed;

30. That, in view of the foregoing and considering that the regulations have been modified during the processing of this administrative sanctioning procedure, it is appropriate to analyze whether in the present case the provisions of the New Graduality Regime of Sanctions should be applied by virtue of the Principle of Favorable Retroactivity, established in numeral 5) of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG, which states that: “(…) 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”;

Sanction Criteria

31. That, regarding the severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, the timely submission of periodic information (financial information and annual report) or occasional information (material events) aims to allow investors to make investment decisions with adequate information. In this way, investors are protected and the asymmetry in access to information is reduced; therefore, the protected legal interest is the transparency of the securities market, which, when transgressed, affects the public interest.

32. That, regarding the sanction history, article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation establishes that the offender's history consists of the sanctions imposed by the SMV that became final within the four (04) years prior to the moment of the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. Likewise, the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered a history, since this commission would be classified as recidivism. In application of said criterion, it has been verified that the Issuer has a sanction history, as detailed in the Report;

33. That, it should be noted that, in the evaluation of this criterion, it is pertinent to refer to the Issuer's comment by which it maintains that the SASCM, when issuing Deputy Superintendent SMV Resolution No. 058-2022-SMV/11 of 07 June 2022, considered that the fine applicable to a serious infraction was excessive, and therefore resolved that a fine corresponding to a minor infraction be imposed, in accordance with article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation clearly indicates that in order to impose a sanction corresponding to a lower classification than the one provided for, it is applied by exception and by means of a reasoned resolution. Although this exception allows the SASCM to apply a sanction corresponding to a minor infraction, this decision does not mean that the classification of the infraction type is modified;

34. That, regarding the recidivism of the offender, literal b) of article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation establishes that the final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. In this regard, it has been verified that there is no recidivism on the part of the Issuer with respect to the infraction related to the late submission of material events;

35. That, in relation to the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, it has been verified that the Issuer submitted its material event related to the resolution of the board meeting of 27 February 2023, in which the call for the General Shareholders' Meeting to be held on 29 March 2023 was approved, a resolution that should have been communicated on the same day of its approval, that is, on 27 February 2023; however, it was reported late on 14 March 2023, that is, with fifteen (15) calendar days of delay, as also indicated by the Issuer in its acknowledgment of responsibility;

36. That, with respect to the economic harm and its impact on the market, it has not been evidenced that the non-compliance has produced a quantifiable harm, understood as an economic damage caused to one or several investors. It should be noted that as part of its arguments, the Issuer states that as of 29 March 2023, the Issuer had only two (02) shareholders and that it is registered in the RPMV, in accordance with the article of the General Law of the Financial System and the Insurance System and Organic Law of the Superintendency of Banking, Insurance and AFP, Law No. 26702, and not by corporate decision. In this regard, it should be recalled to the Issuer that its status as a participant in the securities market is that of an Issuer since it has shares registered in the RPMV and as such is subject to the rules applicable to issuers of the securities market regardless of whether the obligation originated from a legal mandate or from a particular decision of the company;

37. That, in relation to the illegally obtained benefit, it should be noted that in the present case, there are not sufficient elements to indicate that the Issuer obtained an illegal benefit as a consequence of the commission of the infractions under evaluation;

38. That, with respect to the probability of detection of the infraction committed, it is high, because this type of non-compliance is corroborated by the SMV itself through periodic control actions;

39. That, regarding the existence or not of intentionality in the conduct of the offender, it is considered that the actions of the Issuer were not intentional, but negligent, by not having acted with due diligence in complying with its obligation to timely submit its material events. It should be noted that if the existence of intentional conduct by the Issuer had been proven, we would have to point out that aggravating circumstances were proven in the proceeding, which would allow the fine to be increased up to the maximum permitted by the corresponding law. As this is not the case, it will not be increased up to that amount;

40. That, regarding the application of the Warning sanction, it is noted that subsection (ii) of numeral 4.2 of the Special Sanction Criteria describes as a guideline for the application of the warning sanction, the concurrence of the following assumptions: “(i) the impact on market transparency is minimal; ii) the infraction committed has not caused a concrete harm to investors or associates; (iii) the offender has no prior record or, if having one, it involves infractions classified as minor offenses imposed in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction being evaluated; (iv) the offender has not obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct; and (v) it has not been proven that the offender acted with intent in the commission of the infraction.”;

41. That, it should be noted that these guidelines for the application of the warning sanction are also set forth in subsection 6.1 of article 6 of the New Regime of Gradualness of Sanctions under the same terms, except for what refers to the prior record and recidivism of the offender set forth in the new rule as follows: “a. When the impact on the

Electronically signed document digitally signed within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Signatures and Digital Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) sign ature( s) can be verified at https://apps. sign atureperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

market is minimal. This statement is linked to the criterion of the severity of the harm to the public interest and/or protected legal right; b. The infraction committed has not caused a concrete harm to investors or associates; c. The offender has no prior record or, if having one, it involves sanctions corresponding to minor infractions imposed by the SMV that have become final in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction being evaluated; d. The offender is not a recidivist; e. The offender has not obtained benefits from its administrative infraction; and, f. It has not been proven that the offender acted with intentionality in the commission of the infraction.”;

42. That, considering the foregoing and taking into account the regulations in force during the processing of this PAS, in accordance with the Principle of Favorable Retroactivity, and as mentioned above, it is appropriate to apply the sanctioning provisions in force at the time the administered party incurred the conduct subject to sanction, insofar as subsequent provisions are not more favorable;

43. That, consequently, in the present case it is observed that the Issuer has a record of infractions, having been sanctioned by Deputy Superintendency Resolutions SMV No. 056-2021-SMV/11 of 23 June 2021 and No. 058-2022-SMV/11 of 07 June 2022, for having incurred serious infractions classified in subsections 2.21 and 2.10 of numeral 2 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation, respectively; therefore, it is not appropriate to propose the sanction of a warning in the present case, since the Issuer does not meet the requirement of not having only a record of infractions classified as minor offenses imposed in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infractions being evaluated;

44. That, regarding the evaluation of the Principle of Favorable Retroactivity and the Proposed Sanction, it is noted that numeral 54 of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG, by which it is possible to apply sanctioning norms subsequent to the commission of the offense provided they benefit the administered party, the corresponding sanction will be graduated taking into account the Special Sanction Criteria and also the New Regime of Graduality of Sanctions. Once the fines have been calculated, the one most beneficial to the administered party shall be calculated and the most beneficial fine shall be proposed;

45. That, from the comparison of the provisions of numeral (iv) of subsection 4.2 of the Special Sanction Criteria and numeral 6.2 of article 6 of the New Graduality Regime (which determine the fine by quantifying the base in UIT and for each day of delay), it is observed that a lower amount to be sanctioned is obtained with the application of the Special Sanction Criteria for the infraction incurred by the Issuer, as detailed in the Annex;

46. That, likewise, in relation to the antecedents, the Special Sanction Criteria establish that “it will increase by two percent (2%)

[4] “Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles: (…) 5. Irretroactivity.- 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. (…)”

Electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) sign ature( s) can be verified at https://apps. fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

if it is determined that the offending subject has a record of sanction and by three percent (3%) if it has a record of the same conduct that is intended to be sanctioned.”, likewise, the New Graduality Regime states that “The amount resulting from the application of the guidelines contemplated in numeral 6.2 may be increased up to five percent (5%) if it is proven that the offending subject has a record of sanction”, without making any distinction as to whether they correspond to a different or the same type of offense. Therefore, in order to determine which is the most beneficial rule, the SASCM considers that the application of the new regulations will be increased by one percent (1%) for each sanction resolution that constitutes the antecedent up to a maximum of five percent (5%);

47. That, in the present PAS, since four (4) sanction antecedents have been identified, four percent (4%) will be applied in the calculation of the fine under the New Regime of Graduality of Sanctions;

48. That, in relation to recidivism, the Special Sanction Criteria did not regulate this criterion for its quantification and the New Graduality Regime states that “The amount resulting from the application of the guidelines contemplated in numeral 6.2 may be increased (…) up to ten percent (10%) if it is verified that the offending subject is a recidivist”; in that sense, the SASCM considers that it will be increased by five percent (5%) when the Issuer has one (01) sanction resolution that grants recidivism or ten percent (10%) when it has two (02) or more sanction resolutions that grant recidivism. In this regard, in the present case it is observed that the Issuer is not a recidivist;

49. That, in that sense, from the review of the Special Sanction Criteria and the New Regime of Graduality of Sanctions, it is observed that for the infraction subject to charge, the graduation of the Special Sanction Criteria, in force at the time of the commission of the infraction, is more favorable, as observed in the Report, so it is appropriate to impose on the Issuer a fine amounting to 3.15 UIT5, equivalent to S/ 15,592.00 (Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Two and 00/100 Soles);

50. That, regarding the application of the acknowledgment of responsibility, taking into account that it was made expressly and in writing, within the period granted for the submission of defenses by the Issuer and in accordance with the provisions of numeral 1 of subsection a) of article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation; in that sense, it is appropriate to apply the reduction of the fine by up to 50%;

51. That, for that reason, and considering the evaluation carried out in the present PAS, it is appropriate to impose on the Issuer a total fine of 1.575 UIT equivalent to S/ 7,796.25 (Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Six and 25/100 Soles);

52. That the Issuer is reminded that final resolutions of sanctions imposed by competent authorities must be reported as a material fact, within the framework of the provisions of Article 5 of the Material Facts Regulation, and;

In accordance with the provisions of numerals 13 and 36 of Article 43 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the Superintendency of the Securities Market – SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF;

[5] Value of the UIT (2023): S/ 4 950 (Supreme Decree No. 309-2022-EF)

Electronic document digitally signed in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) sign ature( s) can be verified at https://apps. fir maperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

RESOLVES:

Article 1.- Declare that Qualitas Compañía de Seguros S.A. has incurred in one (1) infraction of a minor nature, typified in subsection 3.1 of numeral 3 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for the late submission of the material fact regarding the board of directors meeting agreement of 27 February 2023, by which the call for the General Shareholders Meeting to be held on 29 March 2023 was approved; a fact that should have been communicated on the same day of its approval, that is, on 27 February 2023; however, it was reported late on 14 March 2023.

Article 2.- Sanction Qualitas Compañía de Seguros S.A. with a total fine of 1.575 UIT equivalent to S/ 7,796.25 (Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Six and 25/100 Soles), for the provisions of Article 1 of this Resolution.

Article 3.- This Resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, and it may be challenged before this Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision by filing a reconsideration appeal, an administrative appeal recognized in Article 218 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law – Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS, within a period of fifteen (15) business days, counted from the day following its notification, as it is a single-instance administrative procedure. If this Resolution is not challenged, the corresponding sanction reduction regime may be applied.

Article 4.- If this Resolution is not subject to challenge, it must be published on the “SMV Institutional Page on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State for Citizen Orientation (www.gob.pe/smv)”, in observance of the provisions of numeral 1 of 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 by the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 14 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 5.- Transcribe this Resolution to Qualitas Compañía de Seguros S.A.

Signed by: MENESES CAMARGO Carlos Enrique
Reason:

Carlos Enrique Meneses Camargo
Deputy Superintendent (e)
Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision

Resolution of the Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision No. 065-2024-SMV/11