Superintendent Resolution No. 012-2024-SMV/02

Lima, 02 February 2024

The Superintendent of the Securities Market

WHEREAS:

Administrative File No. 2023024058 and Report No. 130-2024-SMV/10.2 of 29 January 2024, issued by the General Superintendence of Entity Supervision with the favorable endorsement of the Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision;

CONSIDERING:

That, by Superintendent Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02 of 6 November 2023, it was resolved to revoke the operating authorization (hereinafter, REVOCATION RESOLUTION) of Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. EAFC (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE), and consequently, to exclude said company from the corresponding section of the Special Registry of Other Entities under the competence of the Superintendence of the Securities Market – SMV;

That, the REVOCATION RESOLUTION ordered the liquidation of the collective funds managed by PLAN RENTABLE;

That, the revocation of the operating authorization of PLAN RENTABLE was carried out because the deadlines indicated by Superintendent Resolutions No. 043-2023-SMV/02, No. 085-2023-SMV/02 and No. 090-2023-SMV/02, regarding its suspension of functions, had been met, without PLAN RENTABLE having complied with reversing the situations of non-compliance identified in said resolutions regarding the conditions and/or requirements that its shareholders must meet, as well as the minimum conditions of technological capacity;

That, by letter of 27 November 2023, PLAN RENTABLE filed a reconsideration appeal against the REVOCATION RESOLUTION. Said appeal was filed within the term of fifteen (15) business days from notification of the administrative act, in accordance with article 218.2 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444 approved by Supreme Decree No. 009-2021 (hereinafter, TUO LPAG);

That, by Official Letter No. 103-2024-SMV/10.2 of 9 January 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was informed that the inspection visit requested in its reconsideration appeal would be carried out on 10 January 2024;

That, on 10 January 2024, the aforementioned inspection visit was carried out in order to corroborate whether PLAN RENTABLE has operating and computer systems, including accounting, operational or any other type of systems with mechanisms to preserve the integrity, confidentiality and availability of information. In this regard, SMV officials and representatives of PLAN RENTABLE signed the “Inspection Completion Record at the Request of Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C.”;

That, by letter of 11 January 2024, PLAN RENTABLE submitted an expanded report of the one presented in its reconsideration appeal;

That, with Report No. 105-2024-SMV/10.2, a technical report was issued regarding the minimum conditions of technological capacity; of PLAN RENTABLE

That, in its reconsideration appeal, PLAN RENTABLE presented as new evidence the following: (i) document entitled “Management Summary Report of General Financial Position” (hereinafter, FINANCIAL POSITION REPORT) of the shareholders Jorge de Olazabal Angulo (hereinafter, JORGE DE OLAZABAL) and Jessica del Carmen Bocanegra Carrasco (hereinafter, JESSICA BOCANEGRA). This document is accompanied by account statements, Infocorp credit report, Public Registry entries, among others, and (ii) document entitled “Expert Report Pronouncement on: Compliance with observations made to Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C” and annexes;

That, numeral 173.2 of article 173 of the TUO LPAG states that it corresponds to the administered to propose expert evidence. That is, the administered has the right to offer expert evidence as evidentiary means and that they be acted upon and evaluated;

That, for its part, numeral 177.3 of article 177 of the TUO LPAG states that in the administrative procedure it is appropriate as evidence to gather background and documents, request reports and opinions of any type, conduct ocular inspections, among others;

That, in that line, article 187 of the TUO LPAG states that the administered may propose the designation of experts at their cost, and must at the same time indicate the technical aspects on which they must pronounce;

That, in the present case, PLAN RENTABLE has not proposed to the SMV the designation of experts nor has it indicated the technical aspects on which they must pronounce;

That, however, in accordance with article 2621 of the TUO of the Civil Procedure Code, approved by Ministerial Resolution No. 010-93-JUS (hereinafter, CPC), the expert evidence is appropriate when the appreciation of the controverted facts requires special knowledge of a scientific, technological, artistic or other analogous nature;

That, likewise, article 264 of the CPC states the following:

Article 264.- The parties may, within the same term as the experts appointed by the Judge, present expert report on the same

[1] “Article 262.- The expert evidence is appropriate when the appreciation of the controverted facts requires special knowledge of a scientific, technological, artistic or other analogous nature.”

3

points that Article 263 deals with, provided that they have offered it at the proper opportunity.

This expert may be cited to the evidentiary hearing and will participate in it subject to what the Judge orders

That, it must be taken into consideration that, it is not enough for the administered to name a party document “expert evidence” for such document to have that quality. In this regard, article 263 of the CPC specifies that:

Article 263.- When offering the expert evidence, the points on which the opinion will focus, the profession or trade of the person who must practice it and the controverted fact that is intended to be clarified with the result of the expert evidence must be indicated with clarity and precision. The experts are designated by the Judge in the number that they consider necessary.

That, from the foregoing, it follows that the party expert evidence, as a means of proof regulated by the CPC, is appropriate when there are disputed facts between parties that must be resolved by a judge and, furthermore, certain requirements must be observed such as clearly and precisely indicating the points on which the expert opinion will focus, the profession of the person who must carry it out and the disputed fact;

That, it should be noted that in the case of Mr. JORGE DE OLAZABAL and Mrs. JESSICA BOCANEGRA there is no accounting controversy or recognition of assets, but rather regarding the economic solvency that said assets grant to the shareholders to meet their obligations. That is, based on objective information (such as asset information), the regulator evaluates whether or not the organizers have economic solvency;

That, in turn, in the case of the evaluation of the minimum conditions of technological capacity, the regulator's evaluation consists of verifying that the managing company complies with the requirements established by the regulations. In the present case, it was verified through an inspection that the computer and accounting systems of PLAN RENTABLE do not comply with the requirements of Annexes 4 and 5 of the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and their Managing Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION). This non-compliance was not remedied by PLAN RENTABLE within the established deadline, and as a consequence, such situation was determined as grounds for suspension and subsequent revocation of its operating authorization. There is no controversy in terms of disagreement over a fact or a right between parties, but rather it concerns the non-compliance with regulatory requirements by an entity authorized by the SMV;

That, in line with the foregoing, the documents submitted by PLAN RENTABLE do not comply with the requirements established in article 263 of the CPC to qualify as party expert evidence, since it has not been specified what the disputed fact is that is intended to be clarified with the result of the expert evidence. It should be noted that the ASSET POSITION REPORT is a letter addressed by Mr. Jhovani Chávez Valero to PLAN RENTABLE;

That, taking into consideration the provisions of the aforementioned articles of the CPC, the documents submitted by PLAN RENTABLE do not comply with the requirements to be considered as party expert evidence;

That, notwithstanding the foregoing, the reports submitted will be subject to evaluation in the analysis of this reconsideration appeal for the purposes of determining whether PLAN RENTABLE complied with remedying the observations identified regarding its shareholders and the minimum conditions of technological capacity.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RECONSIDERATION APPEAL

That, PLAN RENTABLE alleges that the REVOCATION RESOLUTION is null and states among its main arguments the following:

(i) There would be no uniform rule to evaluate the economic solvency of the shareholders: they specify that the evaluations carried out on each of the shareholders have been different, since while in some certain years of losses of the company were considered, in others operating costs were considered.

(ii) There are resolutions that have been issued on the same day, without considering the deadline to be challenged, which would have violated due process and the right of defense: Resolution of the General Superintendence of Supervision of Entities No. 121-2023-SMV/10.2 of 06 November 2023 and notified the same day, the same one that denies the request for authorization of transfer of 77.25% of shares representing the share capital of PLAN RENTABLE in favor of Mr. JORGE DE OLAZABAL (hereinafter, DENIAL RESOLUTION), has been notified the same day as the REVOCATION RESOLUTION. They allege that the foregoing violates the validity requirement of the administrative act referred to the regular procedure, because deadlines were not established to file a reconsideration or appeal against the DENIAL RESOLUTION, since the decision to revoke its operating authorization was notified on the same 06 November 2023, violating numeral 7 of article 66 of the TUO LPAG. From the review of the last five paragraphs of the REVOCATION RESOLUTION, it can be seen that none of them analyzes or issues a pronouncement on its defense arguments and it only limited itself to concluding, without further support, that the imputed infraction had been accredited. They point out that the foregoing constitutes grounds for nullity.

(iii) The REVOCATION RESOLUTION would have been issued violating the following:

a. Numeral 131.3 of article 131 of the TUO LPAG, which establishes that it is the right of the administered to demand compliance with the deadlines and terms established for each action or service.

b. The principle of reasonableness, by not having considered the documents submitted that accredit the economic and moral solvency of the shareholders.

c. The principle of legality, since article 4 of the Common Rules for Entities that require Authorization of Organization and Functioning of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 039-2016-

SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, COMMON RULES), states that the organizers must have recognized economic and moral solvency to the satisfaction of the SMV. In that sense, the documents would be evaluated according to the subjective criteria of the SMV.

d. The principle of due procedure for not issuing a decision motivated objectively and failing to comply with the deadlines to exhaust the administrative route.

(iv) It alleges that the REVOCATION RESOLUTION does not evaluate the economic solvency of the shareholders and concludes that PLAN RENTABLE does not comply with having technological capacity without having made an on-site review of the way in which they implemented the remediation of said observation.

(v) It points out that the applicable regulations do not establish a provision that prohibits the transfer of shares via donation.

EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE RECONSIDERATION APPEAL

That, next, we will proceed to evaluate the arguments of the reconsideration appeal filed by PLAN RENTABLE:

ON THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ECONOMIC SOLVENCY

That, PLAN RENTABLE has pointed out that there is no rule to evaluate the economic solvency of the shareholders, and that the ratings made for each of them have been different in the following documents: (i) Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades N° 050-2023-SMV/10.2 of 27 April 2023, (ii) Oficio N° 4006-2023-SMV/10.2 of 29 August 2023, (iii) Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades N° 107-2023- SMV/10.2 of 13 September 2023, (iv) Oficio N° 4367-2023-SMV/10.2 of 22 September 2023, and (v) Oficio N° 4928-2023-SMV/10.2 of 31 October 2023;

That, in this regard, the criteria used by the SMV for the economic evaluation of the shareholders Angélica Murillo Cárdenas, Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas, Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes, Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes, Jorge David Zegarra Paredes, Aytara del Rosario Zegarra Salas and Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez were described in detail in the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh recitals of Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades N° 050-2023-SMV/10.2 of 27 April 2023, which are set out below:

“ (…) That, to evaluate the economic solvency of the organizers of entities that require authorization of operation from the SMV, the general patrimonial backing and the resources available to it, in the short term, to make the contribution of its participation in the minimum capital required by the regulations for the entity, equivalent to S/ 1 401 896 for 2023, and for subsequent capital increases to meet operating costs during the first years of the entity's operations, are considered as a parameter. That minimum parameter must also be applicable to measure the economic solvency of the persons detailed in

6

the preceding table, regardless of whether the transfer was made as a donation; That additionally, regarding the evaluation of the economic solvency of the applicants, we must point out that PLAN RENTABLE, from 2014 to 2021, has not managed to cover its operating costs, recording losses in all these years (S/ 1.17 million in 2021 and an average of S/1.71 million in the seven years of operations). This implies that, except for the year 2015, in order to continue with the regular development of its activities, it has required its shareholders to periodically make capital contributions in amounts from S/ 1.49 million in 2016 to S/4.40 million in 2021; That, according to the audited financial information for the years 2021 and 2020, PLAN RENTABLE has recorded a loss of S/1.17 million and S/ 1.57 million, respectively, for which it has required capital increases. Thus, under that scenario, each of the applicants would have to prove that they have at least short-term resources that allow them to be able to make an approximate contribution of S/ 117 thousand to S/157 thousand in each fiscal year; That, additionally, PLAN RENTABLE needs to strengthen its financial situation and have greater income generation capacity to improve its financial performance. As can be seen, the capital increases in 2020 and 2021 have not been sufficient to reverse its permanent deficit situation, so it would possibly need capital contributions in larger amounts. That, in that sense, as described in the preceding paragraphs, the economic solvency of the applicants is evaluated considering their economic capacity to: i) contribute the share of the minimum capital established by the regulations, if they had to constitute an EAFC under equal treatment to any other organizer; and, ii) make the contributions to cover the periodic losses of PLAN RENTABLE in the coming years for the strengthening of the entity, with the objective of reversing its financial performance (…)

That, in accordance with the foregoing, the criterion used to evaluate economic solvency is expressed in the capacity of the shareholders to have sufficient short-term resources to make the respective capital contribution for compliance with the minimum capital established by the regulations, and to cover possible periodic losses in the coming years, in order to improve its financial performance, this because PLAN RENTABLE has been recording permanent losses since the beginning of its operations, and consequently has required periodic capital increases;

That, it should be noted that the economic solvency criteria based on: i) the capacity to contribute the capital for compliance with the minimum capital established by the regulations, and ii) the capacity to cover possible losses derived from its operations, are required of all persons who intend to organize or be shareholders of a collective funds management company. It should be indicated that, regarding point ii), this has been determined by reviewing the situation of PLAN RENTABLE, regarding its financial performance since the beginning of its operations, so it is not based on referential or subjective parameters;

That, likewise, the requirement to maintain economic solvency arises as an essential requirement for the shareholders of collective funds management companies, as well as for any other legal entity with authorization of operation issued by the SMV. Therefore, considering that a company that is authorized to raise money from the public in the securities market or in the collective funds system requires that, in the event of a liquidity or solvency problem, its shareholders can make immediate contributions to the company and such problem does not affect the associates or may lead to a suspension of its operating authorization in accordance with article 84 of the Regulation of the Collective Funds System and its Managing Companies (hereinafter, REGULATION) and article 3, numeral 14, subsection i) of the Single Concorded Text of the Organic Law of the SMV (hereinafter, ORGANIC LAW);

That, all the more so, since PLAN RENTABLE has been repeatedly suspended for lack of equity solvency or for lack of solvency or impediments of its shareholders in accordance with:

1. Superintendent Resolution No. 135-2016-SMV/02 of 13 October 2016, by which the suspension of the operating authorization granted to PLAN RENTABLE was ordered for a period of ninety (90) calendar days due to its situation of net equity deficit.

2. Superintendent Resolution No. 154-2016-SM/02 of 19 December 2016 left without effect the suspension of the operating authorization of Plan Rentable. Consequently, PLAN RENTABLE maintained the suspension of its operating authorization from 13 October to 19 December, that is, approximately two (02) months.

3. Superintendent Resolution No. 029-2021-SMV/02 of 28 April 2021, by which, among others, the suspension of the operating authorization granted to PLAN RENTABLE was ordered for a period of ninety (90) calendar days due to its situation of net equity deficit.

4. Superintendent Resolution No. 070-2021-SMV/02 of 02 August 2021, by which, among others, the extension of the suspension of the operating authorization granted to PLAN RENTABLE ordered by Superintendent Resolution No. 029-2021-SMV/02 was ordered for a period of sixty (60) calendar days due to its situation of net equity deficit.

5. Superintendent Resolution No. 092-2021-SMV/02 of 27 September 2021, by which, among others, the extension of the suspension of the operating authorization granted to PLAN RENTABLE ordered by Superintendent Resolution No. 029-2021-SMV/02 and extended by Superintendent Resolution No. 070-2021-SMV/02 was ordered for a period of sixty (60) calendar days due to its situation of net equity deficit.

6. Superintendent Resolution No. 120-2021-SMV/02 of 25 November 2021, by which, among others, it was ordered to declare that PLAN RENTABLE has incurred an additional cause for suspension of its operating authorization for maintaining its controlling shareholder Mrs. Daysi Pérez Mendoza de Torpoco with an impediment established in Annex B, literal s), of the Common Rules for entities that require

authorization for organization and operation from the SMV, approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 00039-2016-SMV/01 (hereinafter, Common Rules). Additionally, the suspension was maintained for a period of ninety (90) calendar days ordered by Superintendent Resolution No. 029-2021-SMV/02 and extended by Superintendent Resolutions No. 070-2021-SMV/02, No. 092-2021-SMV/02.

7. Superintendent Resolution No. 021-2022-SM/02 of 24 February 2022 left without effect the suspension of the operating authorization of PLAN RENTABLE ordered by Superintendent Resolution No. 029-2021-SMV/02 and extended by Superintendent Resolutions No. 070-2021-SMV/02, No. 092-2021-SMV/02 and No. 120-2021-SMV/02. Consequently, PLAN RENTABLE maintained the suspension of its operating authorization from 28 April 2021 to 24 February 2022, that is, approximately ten (10) months.

8. Superintendent Resolution No. 043-2023-SMV/02 of 31 May 2023, which ordered the suspension of the operating authorization granted to PLAN RENTABLE, during the term of thirty (30) business days or until said company accredits the removal of the shareholders Mr. Jorge David Zegarra Paredes, Mr. Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes, Mr. Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes, Mrs. Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez, Mrs. Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas, Mrs. Angélica Murillo Cárdenas and Mrs. Aytara del Rosario Zegarra Salas and, if applicable, the obtaining of the authorization for transfer of shares referred to in article 12 of the COMMON RULES, to the satisfaction of the SMV. The suspension of the operating authorization was extended by Superintendent Resolution No. 054-2023-SMV/02 of 14 July 2023, Superintendent Resolution No. 067-2023-SMV/02 of 29 August 2023 and Superintendent Resolution No. 085-2023-SMV/02 of 12 October 2023. It should be noted that considering the Revocation Resolution, Plan Rentable maintained a suspension of its operating authorization from 31 May to 06 November 2023, that is, approximately five (05) months.

That, as can be seen, the economic solvency of the shareholders must be evaluated so that a company of the collective funds system does not fail to comply, among others, with the deadlines for remedying a possible equity deficit derived from losses from the operations inherent to its line of business. This, so that PLAN RENTABLE does not see its operating authorization suspended, a measure that although extraordinary, had to be applied repeatedly in safeguard of the collective funds system and the associates;

That, it should be noted that PLAN RENTABLE obtained authorization to operate as a collective funds management company through Superintendency Resolution No. 057-2015-SMV/02 of 3 June 2015, while the Revocation Resolution was issued on 6 November 2023. Therefore, considering the foregoing, PLAN RENTABLE kept its operating authorization suspended for one (01) year five (05) months out of the eight (08) years five (05) months it remained in the market;

That, likewise, with respect to shareholders holding less than 10% of the share capital, Ingrid del Pilar Rojas Puga, Cruz Arturo Vallejos Tapia, Brayan Yamir Asenjo Tello, Ernesto Alejandro Iglesias Pinto, Natalia Estefanía Reyes

Vargas and Yimy Sullón Yarleque, the criteria taken into account to evaluate their economic solvency through Official Letter No. 4006-2023-SMV/10.2 were the same as those adopted by Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades Resolution No. 050-2023-SMV/10.2, as detailed below:

(…) In addition, it is relevant to take into account the economic situation of Plan Rentable and its financial performance since it began operations in the collective funds industry. Plan Rentable has not managed to cover its operating costs, recording losses in all these years (S/ 1.17 million in 2021 and an average of S/ 1.71 million in the seven years of operations). This implies that, in order to continue with the regular development of its activities, it has required its shareholders to periodically make capital contributions. Likewise, the periodic capital increases have been consumed by losses in each period and have not allowed Plan Rentable to maintain sufficient net equity to permanently comply with the prudential capital parameter and the minimum equity required by the SMV. It should be noted that the capital increases, except for the year 2015 due to the start of operations, and 2022 as it is considered an atypical year, have been at least S/ 1.49 million in 2016 up to S/ 4.40 million in 2021. This situation and trend is maintained in the audited financial information of the last fiscal years, that is, 2021 and 2020, where it recorded a loss of S/1.17 million and S/ 1.57 million, respectively. Thus, under that scenario, each of the shareholders would have to have at least short-term resources that allow them to be able to make capital contributions that allow Plan Rentable to remain solvent. Additionally, Plan Rentable needs to strengthen its financial situation and have greater income-generating capacity to improve its financial performance. It should be noted that the capital increases made in 2020 and 2021, for S/ 2 423 thousand and S/ 4 399 thousand, respectively. In that sense, as described in the preceding paragraphs, the economic solvency of the shareholders is evaluated considering at least their economic capacity to: i) contribute the percentage share of the minimum capital established by the regulations, if they had to incorporate an EAFC under equal treatment to any other organizer; and, ii) make the contributions to cover the periodic losses of Plan Rentable in the coming years for the strengthening of the entity, with the objective of reversing its financial performance. (…)”

That, from the foregoing, it is verified that the criterion used to evaluate economic solvency continues to be the capacity of the shareholders to have sufficient short-term resources to make the respective capital contribution for compliance with the minimum capital established by the regulations and to cover possible periodic losses in the coming years to maintain its operability and improve its financial performance. It should be noted that the economic solvency requirement is not the same for a person who has 10% participation as for one who intends to maintain a majority, control, or 77.25% participation, this in view of the greater responsibilities for capital contributions in the event of an equity deficit derived from losses due to its operating costs;

10

That, with respect to the economic solvency of the shareholders David Ángel Valencia Espinoza and Juan Felix Chumbiray Uribe analyzed through Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades Resolution No. 107-2023- SMV/10.2, the criteria used were the same criteria applied in Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades Resolution No. 050-2023-SMV/10.2 and Official Letter No. 4006-2023-SMV/10.2, as described in the sixth recital:

“ (…) 6. That, as a general criterion, to evaluate the economic solvency of the organizers, their equity backing (assets minus liabilities) and their capacity to be able to make, at least, the minimum capital contribution required by the regulations (S/ 1.401 896 for 2023), as well as their capacity to be able to make successive capital increases that allow the entity to face significant operating costs during the first years of its operations; (…)”

That, it should be noted that in all cases presented for the evaluation of the economic solvency of the shareholders, the review of assets and liabilities was carried out and, in particular, special attention was paid to liquid or short-term realizable assets;

That, with respect to the economic solvency of the shareholder Oscar Fernando Guizado Vargas analyzed through Official Letter No. 4367-2023-SMV/10.2, the criteria used were the same criteria applied in Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades Resolution No. 050-2023-SMV/10.2 and No. 107-2023-SMV/10.2, and Official Letter No. 4006-2023-SMV/10.2, as detailed below:

"(…) As a general criterion, to evaluate the economic solvency of the organizers and shareholders, their equity backing (assets minus liabilities) and their capacity to be able to make, in the short term, the minimum capital contribution required by the regulations (S/ 1,401 896 for 2023), as well as their capacity to be able to make the successive capital increases that allow the entity to face the significant operating costs during the first years of its operations. For this purpose, special attention must be paid to the liquid assets, or eventually to the easily liquidated assets, held by the organizers or shareholders."

That, we must state that the particular attention to the liquid or easily liquidated assets of the shareholders is a criterion considered from the beginning of the procedure as part of the evaluation of the economic solvency of the shareholders, as can be observed in the Tables where the Equity Position of the shareholders is detailed, which were included in all the resolutions and official letters where the evaluation was carried out;

That, regarding the economic solvency of the shareholder Jessica del Carmen Bocanegra Carrasco analyzed through Oficio N° 4928-2023- SMV/10.2, the criteria used were the same criteria applied in the Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades N° 050-2023-SMV/10.2 and N° 107-2023-SMV/10.2, and Oficio N° 4006-2023-SMV/10.2 and N° 4367-2023-SMV/10.2, as detailed below:

11

"(…) In the present case, the same general criterion will be considered, regardless of whether the shareholders acquire shares through a donation, given that according to the Common Rules the requirements of economic solvency and moral suitability are enforceable on the shareholders by their status as such. Likewise, it is considered that currently the entity requires strengthening its economic and operational situation1.

In this sense, as a first aspect Jessica Bocanegra must demonstrate that she has a general equity and liquid assets in an amount greater than the equivalent of her percentage participation in the minimum share capital of Plan Rentable, as detailed in table N° 1. (…)

As a second aspect, it is necessary to consider the economic situation of Plan Rentable and its financial performance since it began operations in the collective funds industry. Plan Rentable has not managed to cover its operating costs, recording losses in all years. This implies that, in order to continue with the regular development of its activities, it has required its shareholders to periodically make capital contributions.

However, the periodic capital increases have been absorbed by the losses of each period, whereby Plan Rentable has not been able to maintain sufficient net equity to permanently comply with the minimum capital and equity required by the SMV.

With this, in order to reverse its permanent deficit situation, Plan Rentable requires making significant changes in the management and operations of the entity, as well as strengthening its financial and operational situation.

(…)"

That, on this matter, we must point out that the criterion used for the present evaluation continues to be the capacity of the shareholders to have sufficient resources in the short term to make the respective capital contribution for compliance with the minimum capital established by the regulations and to cover the periodic losses in the coming years to maintain their operability and improve their financial performance, therefore, there are no new considerations to those mentioned previously;

That, we must mention that prior to the evaluation of the economic solvency of JESSICA BOCANEGRA, an inspection visit was made to PLAN RENTABLE in accordance with Oficios N° 3379-2023-SMV/10.2 and N° 3476-2023- SMV/10.2. In this regard, through Oficio N°4385-2023-SMV/10, the Superintendencia Adjunta de Supervisión Prudencial granted PLAN RENTABLE a period of thirty (30) business days to remedy the net equity deficit as of 30 June 2023 of S/. 1,381 thousand. Considering this, the detected equity deficit is highlighted as a third aspect to consider, which was derived from operating losses that even at the date of the RESOLUCIÓN DE REVOCACIÓN had not been remedied;

That, this fact is important because it represented the obligation of the shareholders of PLAN RENTABLE to make a capital increase immediately in order not to enter into a new cause for suspension of the authorization to operate in accordance with article 84 of the REGLAMENTO and article 3, numeral 14, subsection i) of the LEY ORGÁNICA;

12

That, likewise, for the evaluation of the economic solvency carried out on the shareholder JORGE DE OLAZABAL, the criteria taken into account were the same, in accordance with the fourth recital of the RESOLUCIÓN DE DENEGATORIA, which states the following:

" (…) That, as a first aspect to evaluate the economic solvency of the organizers, their equity backing (assets minus liabilities) and their capacity to be able to make, at least, the minimum capital contribution required by the regulations (S/ 1 401 896 for 2023), as well as their capacity to be able to make the successive capital increases that allow the entity to face the significant operating costs during the first years of its operations (…)"

That, it should be noted that, within the capital increases to absorb the losses of PLAN RENTABLE, the need to make a capital increase to remedy the equity deficit within the period established by Oficio N°4385-2023-SMV/10 should also be considered;

That, consequently, in each of the SMV's pronouncements mention has been made of the same criteria used in the economic solvency evaluations of the shareholders of PLAN RENTABLE, and therefore there is a rule on how to carry out said evaluations. These criteria were described in extensive detail in each of the pronouncements so that PLAN RENTABLE is aware of the aspects that were evaluated and keeps them in mind in subsequent evaluations of its shareholders;

ON THE ASSET POSITION REPORT OF JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL ANGULO AND JESSICA BOCANEGRA

That, PLAN RENTABLE submitted two letters signed by a court accounting expert, Mr. Jhovani Chávez Valero. Said letters are titled “Management Synthesis, Asset Position Report” and do not state the methodology used by the expert for the corresponding analysis;

That, the Corporate Expert Report carried out on the General Asset Position and Net Asset Position contains the executive summary of the result of the verification and review of the supporting documentation of the assets of the shareholders JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL and JESSICA BOCANEGRA, in order to verify whether they comply with the applicable regulations regarding the economic solvency of the shareholders;

That, in this regard, it should be noted that among the evaluation criteria described in the DENIAL RESOLUTION, the first aspect mentioned is that the shareholders must demonstrate that they have asset backing in an amount greater than the equivalent of their percentage participation in the minimum share capital of PLAN RENTABLE required by regulation (S/ 1 401 896 for 20232 ), whose figures are the following:

TABLE 1. Contributions for compliance with the minimum capital
Shareholder	Percentage participation	Reference contribution

[2] In accordance with Circular No. 014-2023-SMV/10.2 of file No. 2023000238.

13

JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL	77,25%	S/ 1 083 thousand
JESSICA BOCANEGRA	22,75%	S/ 319 thousand

That, at the same time, by virtue of the economic situation of PLAN RENTABLE and its financial performance since it began operations in the collective funds industry, it is considered as a second aspect that the shareholders must be able to meet capital contributions to strengthen their financial and operational situation, and thus continue with the regular development of their activities;

That, it should be noted that the periodic capital increases have been consumed by losses in each fiscal year and have not allowed PLAN RENTABLE to maintain sufficient net equity to permanently comply with the prudential capital parameter and the minimum equity required by the SMV, as is its situation as of the date of this report. The capital increases, except for the year 2015 due to the start of operations and 2022, have been for significant amounts with a minimum of S/ 1.49 million;

Evaluation of the Economic Solvency of JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL

That, considering the information as of 24 November 2023, evaluated in the ASSET POSITION REPORT referring to financial and material assets, as well as the commitments and obligations of the shareholders, information that was annexed to the reconsideration appeal, the asset situation of the shareholder JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL is analyzed under the same criteria indicated in the previous paragraphs. Thus, the asset balance sheet of the aforementioned shareholder would be the following:

TABLE No. 2: Asset balance sheet of JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL (Expressed in Soles)

ASSETS	VALUE
Real estate	S/ 2,005,035.00
Vehicles	S/ 302,298.99
Total non-current assets	S/ 2,307,333.99
Bank	S/ 1,497,266.24
Total current assets	S/ 1,497,266.24
Total assets	S/ 3,804,600.22
LIABILITIES OR DEBTS	VALUE
Total non-current liabilities	S/0.00
Debt – Interbank	S/ 99,897.00
Total current liabilities	S/ 99,897.00
Total liabilities	S/ 99,897.00
NET ASSETS (Total assets – Total liabilities)	S/ 3,704,703.22
NET LIQUID ASSETS (Current assets – Estimated current liabilities)	S/ 1,397,369.24

Source: ASSET POSITION REPORT prepared with information as of 24 November 2023.

14

That, as a conclusion, in the ASSET POSITION REPORT Mr. Chávez states the following:

“Consequently, subtracting the liabilities and/or commitments assumed by Mr. JORGE DE OLAZABAL ANGULO, a General Equity is determined, which we have determined in the amount of S/3´704,703.22, with the realizable Net Equity amounting to the sum of S/1´497,266.24.

According to article 2 of Decree Law No. 22014 and the Single Final Provision of Law No. 27659, Mr. JORGE DE OLAZABAL ANGULO should have a net equity of S/ 1,083,000.00 according to Resolution of the General Superintendence of Supervision of Entities No. 121-2023-SMV/10.2

Therefore, in our best understanding, Mr. JORGE DE OLAZABAL ANGULO complies with the legal regulations cited with respect to economic solvency as organizer by maintaining a realizable net equity higher than the minimum established in accordance with law.”

That, in this regard, Article 2 of Decree Law No. 22014 states the following:

“Article 2.- The minimum share capital of the Collective Fund Management Companies is Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Nuevos Soles (S/. 750 000), which must be fully paid in cash at the time of commencing operations. The net equity of the Collective Fund Management Companies may not be less than the minimum share capital. The equity deficit incurred by the Collective Fund Management Companies must be covered with new capital contributions, within thirty (30) days following the date of submission of the financial statements showing this situation or of its verification by CONASEV, which, if it deems it pertinent, may grant an additional period.”

That, on the other hand, the Single Final Provision of Law No. 27659:

“SOLE- Adjustment of the capital of the Collective Fund Management Companies

The amount of the minimum share capital of the Collective Fund Management Companies is of constant value and is updated annually based on the Wholesale Price Index for Metropolitan Lima, which is periodically published by the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics. The Collective Fund Management Companies, within three (3) months following the close of each fiscal year, must adjust their capital.

The Collective Fund Management Companies with authorization to operate in force as of the date of enactment of this Law shall have until March 2002 to adjust their capital to the required minimum, based on the index corresponding to December 2001.”

That, it should be noted that Article 2 of Decree Law No. 22014 and the Single Final Provision of Law No. 27659 establish that the amount of the minimum capital and equity of the collective fund management companies updated to the year 2023 must be equal to or greater than S/ 1 401 896,00 in accordance with Circular No. 014-2023-SMV/10.2 of 6 January 2023;

That, therefore, considering the participation percentage of Mr. JORGE DE OLAZABAL, the EQUITY POSITION REPORT submitted by PLAN RENTABLE concludes that it should have a net equity of S/1,083,000.00 and that, therefore, in its understanding, it would comply with the economic solvency as organizer;

That, although PLAN RENTABLE states in its reconsideration brief that this criterion should not be applied, ultimately it is the only criterion evaluated in the EQUITY POSITION REPORT submitted. We must indicate that this first criterion is important considering that, even if the shares have been acquired by donation, the shareholder must be economically capable of having acquired them under market conditions;

That, however, we must point out that the report submitted by PLAN RENTABLE only considers one aspect of the evaluation of Resolution of the General Superintendence of Supervision of Entities No. 121-2023-SMV/10.2, which is the one corresponding to the initial equity. However, it does not evaluate the capacity to make the capital increases that allow the entity to face the periodic losses it has been recording or those necessary to strengthen its financial situation, and to prevent it from falling into a new suspension of authorization to operate as has happened previously;

That, in this regard, Resolution of the General Superintendence of Supervision of Entities No. 121-2023-SMV/10.2 states the following:

“That, as a first aspect to evaluate the economic solvency of the organizers, their equity backing (assets minus liabilities) and their capacity to make, at least, the minimum capital contribution required by the regulations (S/ 1 401 896 for 20233 ), as well as their capacity to make successive capital increases that allow the entity to face significant operating costs during the first years of its operations; (…)

That, in addition, as a second aspect, it is necessary to consider the economic situation of PLAN RENTABLE and its financial performance since it began operations in the collective fund industry. PLAN RENTABLE has not managed to cover its operating costs, recording losses in all years. This implies that, in order to continue with the regular development of its activities, it has required its shareholders to periodically make capital contributions;

That, however, the periodic capital increases have been absorbed by the losses of each period, whereby PLAN RENTABLE has not been able to maintain sufficient net equity to permanently comply with the minimum capital and equity required

[3] In accordance with Circular No. 014-2023-SMV/10.2 of file No. 2023000238.

16

by the SMV. With this, in order to reverse its permanent deficit situation, PLAN RENTABLE requires significant changes in the management and operations of the entity, as well as strengthening its financial and operational situation;

That, additionally, as a third aspect, through Official Letter No. 4383-2023-SMV/10, observations were made to PLAN RENTABLE regarding the physical and infrastructure capacity related to its accounting software. Likewise, through Superintendence Resolution No. 085-2023-SMV/02, it was declared that PLAN RENTABLE has incurred an additional cause for suspension of its authorization to operate for not having the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity established in numeral 5 of Annex 4 and Annex 5 of the REGULATIONS;

(…)”

That, as can be seen, the EQUITY POSITION REPORT does not evaluate the obligation to make subsequent capital contributions to maintain the minimum equity required by the aforementioned regulations, in the event of losses derived from its operating costs, a relevant aspect considered by the General Intendancy Resolution for Supervision of Entities No. 121-2023-SMV/10.2 and all the resolutions and official letters that have been described in the section "ON THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC SOLVENCY" of this document;

That, as can be seen in TABLE No. 2, the shareholder JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL would have a realizable liquid position of S/ 1 497 266.24, which basically covers the amount of the minimum referential contribution of S/ 1 082 965 indicated in TABLE No. 1. However, he does not have the economic solvency to cover the successive capital increases that would allow maintaining the entity's operability or its strengthening, with the aim of reversing its financial performance;

That, furthermore, considering that through Official Letter No. 4385-2023-SMV/10, the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision granted PLAN RENTABLE a period of thirty (30) business days to remedy the net equity deficit as of 30 June 2023 of S/ 1,381 thousand. It should be noted that this deficit was not remedied as of the date of the REVOCATION RESOLUTION;

That, this fact is important because it represented the obligation of the shareholders of PLAN RENTABLE to carry out a capital increase immediately in order not to enter into a new ground for suspension of the operating authorization in accordance with article 84 of the REGULATIONS and article 3, numeral 14, subparagraph i) of the ORGANIC LAW;

That, on the other hand, the shareholder JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL would have, according to the expert appraisal, non-current assets of S/ 2 307 333, which are mainly constituted by real estate, so they would not be easily realizable assets, and could not be used or committed, in their entirety, as part of the capital contributions required to strengthen the financial situation of PLAN RENTABLE. This criterion has been previously stated in the respective pronouncements of the SMV;

That, it should be noted that said criterion in the case of PLAN RENTABLE incorporates the evaluation of its performance considering its losses, as well as the observations regarding its current equity solvency and compliance with obligations regarding the maintenance of automated software, therefore, it is a criterion based on the real and objective situation of PLAN RENTABLE;

That, consequently, the resources available to JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL are not sufficient to comply with the minimum economic solvency parameters required of any shareholder of PLAN RENTABLE;

Evaluation of the Economic Solvency of JESSICA BOCANEGRA

That, considering the information as of 24 November 2023, evaluated in the EQUITY POSITION REPORT referring to financial and material assets, as well as the commitments and obligations of the shareholders, information that was annexed to the reconsideration appeal, the equity situation of the shareholder JESSICA BOCANEGRA is analyzed considering the same criteria indicated in the DENIAL RESOLUTION. Thus, the equity balance sheet of the aforementioned shareholder would be as follows:

TABLE No. 3: Equity balance sheet of JESSICA BOCANEGRA (EXPRESSED IN SOLES)

ASSETS	VALUE
Total non-current assets	S/0.00
Savings in soles – BBVA (demand and time deposits)	S/280,833.23
Savings in soles – Financiera OH (time deposit)	S/133,773.75
Total current assets	S/414,606.98
Total assets	S/414,606.98
LIABILITIES OR DEBTS	VALUE
Total non-current liabilities	S/0.00
Debt – Banco BBVA Perú	S/8,741.00
Debt – Banco Falabella Perú	S/3,083.00
Debt – Interbank	S/19.00
Total current liabilities	S/11,843.00
Total liabilities	S/11,843.00
NET ASSETS (Total assets – Total liabilities)	S/402,763.98
NET LIQUID ASSETS (Current assets – Estimated current liabilities)	S/402,763.98

Source: EQUITY POSITION REPORT prepared with information as of 24 November 2023.

That, as a conclusion, in the EQUITY POSITION REPORT Mr. Chávez states the following:

"Consequently, subtracting the liabilities and/or commitments assumed by Mrs. JESSICA DEL CARMEN BOCANEGRA CARRASCO, a realizable Net Equity is determined, which we have determined in the amount of S/ 402,763.98.

According to article 2 of Decree Law No. 22014 and the Single Final Provision of Law No. 27659, Mrs. JESSICA DEL CARMEN BOCANEGRA

18

CARRASCO should have a net equity of S/ 319,000.00 according to Official Letter No. 4928-2023-SMV/10.2 dated 31 October 2023. Therefore, in our best understanding, Mrs. JESSICA DEL CARMEN BOCANEGRA CARRASCO complies with the cited legal regulations with respect to economic solvency as an organizer by maintaining a realizable net equity higher than the minimum established in accordance with law."

That, it should be mentioned that article 2 of Decree Law No. 22014 and the Single Final Provision of Law No. 27659 establish that the amount of the minimum capital and equity of the collective fund management companies updated to the year 2023 must be equal to or greater than S/ 1 401 896.00 in accordance with Circular No. 014-2023-SMV/10.2 dated 06 January 2023;

That, therefore, considering the participation percentage of Mrs. JESSICA BOCANEGRA, the EQUITY POSITION REPORT concludes that she should have a net equity of S/ 319,000.00 and that, therefore, in its best understanding, she would comply with economic solvency as an organizer;

That, although PLAN RENTABLE states in its reconsideration appeal that this criterion should not be applied, ultimately it is the only criterion evaluated by the party's expert appraisal presented. We must indicate that this first criterion is important considering that, even if the shares were acquired by donation, the shareholder must be economically capable of having acquired them under market conditions;

That, however, we must point out that the EQUITY POSITION REPORT only considers one aspect of the evaluation of Office No. 4928-2023-SMV/10.2, which is the one corresponding to the initial equity. However, it does not evaluate the capacity to carry out the capital increases that would allow the entity to face the losses it has been recording or those necessary to strengthen its financial situation and prevent it from falling into a new suspension of its operating authorization as has happened previously;

That, in this regard, Office No. 4928-2023-SMV/10.2 states the following:

“In this sense, as a first aspect, JESSICA BOCANEGRA must demonstrate that it has a general equity and liquid assets in an amount greater than the equivalent of its percentage participation in the minimum share capital of PLAN RENTABLE (…).

As a second aspect, it is necessary to consider the economic situation of PLAN RENTABLE and its financial performance since it began operations in the collective funds industry. PLAN RENTABLE has not managed to cover its operating costs, recording losses in all years4 . This implies that, in order to continue with the regular development of its activities, it has required its shareholders to periodically make capital contributions.

(…)

[4] Since the beginning of activities, PLAN RENTABLE has recorded losses in all years, the largest being that recorded in fiscal year 2017 (S/ 2,939 thousand), except for 2015 due to the start of operations and 2022 as it is considered atypical.

19

As a third aspect, we must highlight that through Office No. 4383-2023-SMV/10, observations were made to PLAN RENTABLE regarding the physical and infrastructure capacity related to its accounting software. Likewise, through Superintendency Resolution No. 085-2023-SMV/02, it was declared that PLAN RENTABLE has incurred an additional cause for suspension of its operating authorization for not having the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity established in numeral 5 of Annex 4 and Annex 5 of the REGULATION. Furthermore, through Office No. 4385-2023-SMV/10, PLAN RENTABLE was informed that it maintained an equity deficit of S/1,381 thousand and was granted a period to reverse said non-compliance. (…)”

That, as can be seen, the expert report does not evaluate the obligation to make subsequent capital contributions to maintain the minimum equity required by the aforementioned regulations, in the face of losses derived from its operating costs, a relevant aspect considered by Office No. 4928-2023-SMV/10.2 and all the resolutions and offices that have been described in the section “ON THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC SOLVENCY” of this document;

That, it is important to indicate that prior to the evaluation of the economic solvency of Mrs. JESSICA BOCANEGRA through Office No. 4385-2023-SMV/10, the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision granted PLAN RENTABLE a period of thirty (30) business days to remedy the net equity deficit as of 30 June 2023 of S/. 1,381 thousand. It should be noted that this equity deficit had not been remedied as of the date of the REVOCATION RESOLUTION or the issuance of Office No. 4928-2023-SMV/10.2;

That, considering that the EQUITY POSITION REPORT submitted has not carried out an analysis of the contributions that the shareholders must make to maintain their equity sufficiency, we must carry out said analysis with the information presented;

That, as can be observed in TABLE No. 3, the shareholder JESSICA BOCANEGRA would have, according to the aforementioned partial EQUITY POSITION REPORT, an equity position and net liquid position of S/402,763.98, which basically covers the amount of the minimum referential contribution of S/318 thousand indicated in TABLE No. 1. However, it does not have the economic solvency to cover the successive capital increases that would allow the entity to maintain its operability or its strengthening, with the objective of reversing its financial performance, nor to remedy the equity deficit indicated in Office No. 4385-2023-SMV/10;

That, consequently, the resources available to JESSICA BOCANEGRA are not sufficient to comply with the minimum economic solvency parameters required of any organizer of a collective funds management company;

ON THE RESOLUTIONS ISSUED ON THE SAME DATE AS THE DENIAL RESOLUTION

That, PLAN RENTABLE maintains that the DENIAL RESOLUTION and the REVOCATION RESOLUTION were issued and notified on the same day, which violates the validity requirement of the administrative act referring to the regular procedure, because no periods were established to file a reconsideration or appeal against the DENIAL RESOLUTION. Likewise, it alleges that the REVOCATION RESOLUTION would have violated the right of the administered to demand compliance with the periods and terms established for each action or service;

That, in this regard, we must specify that it is not necessary for the DENIAL RESOLUTION to become final for the REVOCATION RESOLUTION to be issued, because the cause of the revocation is not the denial of its request for authorization to transfer shares in favor of JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL. On the contrary, the reason for the revocation of the operating authorization, among others, is that PLAN RENTABLE maintains shareholders who have not accredited compliance with the economic solvency requirement demanded by articles 4 and 12 of the COMMON NORMS, that is, that the conditions that gave rise to the suspension of its operating authorization subsist;

That, in the present case, by Superintendente Resolution No. 043-2023-SMV/02 of 31 May 2023 (hereinafter, SUSPENSION RESOLUTION), the operating authorization granted to PLAN RENTABLE was suspended for a term of thirty (30) business days or until said company evidenced the removal of shareholders Mr. Jorge David Zegarra Paredes, Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes, Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes, Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez, Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas, Angélica Murillo Cárdenas and Aytara del Rosario Zegarra Salas and, if applicable, the obtaining of the share transfer authorization referred to in article 12 of the COMMON RULES;

That, the term of the aforementioned suspension of operating authorization was extended up to three (3) times by Superintendente Resolutions No. 054-2023-SMV/02 of 14 July 2023, No. 067-2023-SMV/02 of 29 August 2023 and No. 085-2023-SMV/02 of 12 October 2023;

That, likewise, it should be highlighted that in the indicated Superintendente Resolution No. 085-2023-SMV/02 of 12 October 2023 it was also declared that PLAN RENTABLE has incurred an additional ground for suspension of its operating authorization for not having the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity established in numeral 5 of Annex 4 and Annex 5 of the REGULATION;

That, in accordance with article 85 of the REGULATION, the SMV may revoke the operating authorization when the conditions that gave rise to the suspension of its operating authorization subsist;

That, therefore, upon expiry of the term granted to PLAN RENTABLE to reverse the situation of maintaining shareholders that do not have the necessary economic solvency as well as the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity, without having reversed said situation, the revocation of its operating authorization was appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of article 85, literal c) of the REGULATION and article 3, numeral 14, subparagraphs i) and ii) of the ORGANIC LAW,

That, notwithstanding that in the present case, in order to issue the REVOCATION RESOLUTION it is only necessary that the conditions that gave rise to the suspension of the operating authorization subsist (maintaining shareholders that do not have economic solvency and not having the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity), it must be specified that PLAN RENTABLE's right to file the appeals it deems necessary against the DENIAL RESOLUTION has not been limited. In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE has had a term of fifteen (15) business days from notification of the DENIAL RESOLUTION to file appeals. However, it has not exercised that right of its own volition;

That, in relation to the argument according to which the REVOCATION RESOLUTION would have violated the principle of reasonableness because it would not have considered the documents submitted that evidence the economic and moral solvency of the shareholders, we must point out that the documents submitted by PLAN RENTABLE regarding shareholders JORGE DE OLAZABAL and JESSICA BOCANEGRA, as specified in the REVOCATION RESOLUTION, were evaluated by the DENIAL RESOLUTION and Official Letter No. 4901-2023-SMV/10.2, respectively;

That, said analysis is taken into consideration by the REVOCATION RESOLUTION to determine that PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with reversing the situation of non-compliance referred to in the SUSPENSION RESOLUTION. Therefore, it is not true that in order to determine the economic and moral solvency of the shareholders, the documentation submitted by PLAN RENTABLE was not taken into account;

That, in relation to the documentation of the shareholders, we must point out that PLAN RENTABLE, in its attempt to remedy the repeated observations regarding the breaches of the conditions and/or requirements of its shareholders, has submitted the documentation of eighteen (18) persons, which we mention below:

1. Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez,

2. Jorge David Zegarra Paredes,

3. Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes,

4. Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes,

5. Brayan Yamir Asenjo Tello,

6. Ernesto Alejandro Iglesias Pint,

7. Yimy Sullón Yarleque,

8. Angélica Murillo Cárdenas,

9. Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas,

10. Aytara Del Rosario Zegarra Salas,

11. Natalia Estefanía Reyes Vargas,

12. David Angel Valencia Espinoza,

13. Juan Felix Chumbiray Uribe,

14. Ingrid del Pilar Rojas Puga,

15. Cruz Arturo Vallejo Tapia,

16. Oscar Fernando Guizado Vargas,

17. JORGE DE OLAZABAL, and

18. JESSICA BOCANEGRA.

That, none of the aforementioned persons has complied with the requirement of economic solvency and said non-compliance has been duly analyzed, evaluated and determined through the various acts

21

administrative acts issued by the Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades. Likewise, the various transfers have been made under the modality of donation, so said persons have not required funds or resources to meet any payment for the acquired shares;

That, we must highlight that there were shareholders who even, according to their sworn asset declarations submitted, did not have any assets to support their economic solvency, as is the case of Mr. Jorge David Zegarra Paredes, Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes and Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez;

That, lastly, in relation to the argument according to which the REVOCATION RESOLUTION violates the principle of legality, since article 4 of the COMMON RULES states that organizers must have recognized economic and moral solvency to the satisfaction of the SMV, which is assessed according to the subjective criterion of the SMV, we must specify that the evaluation carried out by the SMV regarding the economic solvency of the shareholders of PLAN RENTABLE has been duly motivated, as expressed in the various administrative acts that determined that its shareholders did not have economic solvency. These criteria have been applied uniformly in all cases and correspond to data obtained from historical information of PLAN RENTABLE, which have been previously reviewed in this report again with respect to JORGE DE OLAZABAL and JESSICA BOCANEGRA;

That, likewise, we must highlight that economic solvency has been evaluated in accordance with articles 4 and 12 of the COMMON RULES. On the other hand, the revocation has been carried out in accordance with articles 3, numeral 14, literal ii), of the Single Concorded Text of the Organic Law of the Superintendency of the Securities Market, approved by Decreto Ley N° 26126, as well as by article 12, numeral 6, of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Decreto Supremo N° 216-2011-EF; and article 85, literal c) of the REGULATION;

Of the transfers of shares by donation

That, Administrative Law and the protection of rights cannot be used to violate the protection of investors or the collective funds system. In that sense, although there is no impediment to transferring the shares of collective fund management companies via donation, it must be considered that successive donations (in which there is no effective flow of money) and transfers cannot be used as an indefinite dilatory effect as indicated in Table No. 4, leading to the fact that each time a new shareholder is evaluated and is not authorized, their shares are immediately donated to another person so that PLAN RENTABLE always has one more person who must be evaluated as a shareholder;

That, Administrative Law cannot be used as a tool to keep in the collective funds system entities that have not complied with the minimum requirements to act in this regulated and supervised market. In that sense, the principle of procedural good faith5 states that no regulation of the administrative procedure can be interpreted in such a way that it protects any conduct against procedural good faith. In the present case, it cannot be admitted that after reviewing eighteen (18) shareholders, whose

[5] Preliminary Title, Article IV, numeral 1.8 of the TUO LPAG.

transfers were by donation, PLAN RENTABLE alleges that it was not granted all the guarantees to remedy the breach of having shareholders who have moral and economic solvency;

That, the foregoing is evidenced by the successive donations that were carried out in response to the denials of the transfers carried out in favor of the shareholders of PLAN RENTABLE, as indicated below:

TABLE No. 4: SEQUENCE OF EVALUATION OF EIGHTEEN (18) SHAREHOLDERS PRESENTED BY PLAN RENTABLE WHOSE ACQUISITIONS WERE BY DONATION

Universal Shareholders' Meeting	Donor	Donee	Administrative act that evaluates the transfer
1	15 June 2022	- Daysi Pérez Mendoza de Torpoco. - Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez. - Jorge David Zegarra Paredes - Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes. - Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes. - Brayan Yamir Asenjo Tello. - Ernesto Alejandro Iglesias Pinto. - Yimy Sullón Yarleque. - Angélica Murillo Cárdenas. - Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas. - Aytara Del Rosario Zegarra Salas.	Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades Nº 050-2023- SMV/10.2 of 27 April 2023, evaluates and denies shareholders who jointly had more than 10% participation in the share capital: 1.Jorge David Zegarra Paredes. 2.Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes. 3.Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes. 4.Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez. 5.Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas. 6.Angélica Murillo Cárdenas. 7.Aytara del Rosario Zegarra Salas. Oficio N° 4006-2023- SMV/10.2 of 29 August 2023 evaluates

2	26 May 2023	- Jorge David Zegarra Paredes. - Manuel Francisco Zegarra Paredes. - Ramiro Narciso Zegarra Paredes. - Silvia Doris Murillo Cárdenas. - Angélica Murillo Cárdenas. - Aytara del Rosario Zegarra Salas. - Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez (partial transfer by donation).	- David Angel Valencia Espinoza. - Juan Felix Chumbiray Uribe. - Ingrid del Pilar Rojas Puga. - Cruz Arturo Vallejo Tapia. - Brayan Yamir Asenjo Tello. - Ernesto Alejandro Iglesias Pinto. - Yimy Sullón Yarleque. - Natalia Estefanía Reyes Vargas.	- Natalia Estefanía Reyes Vargas. in its supervisory attributions and establishes that certain shareholders with less than 10% participation in the share capital do not have solvency to be shareholders of a collective fund management company: 8.Ingrid del Pilar Rojas Puga. 9.Cruz Arturo Vallejos Tapia. 10.Brayan Yamir Asenjo Tello. 11.Ernesto Alejandro Iglesias Pinto. 12.Natalia Estefanía Reyes Vargas. 13.Yimy Sullón Yarleque. Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades Nº 107-2023- SMV/10.2 of 13 September 2023 evaluates and denies shareholders who had more than 10% participation in the share capital: 14.David Angel Valencia Espinoza. 15.Juan Félix Chumbiray Uribe. Oficio N° 4367-2023- SMV/10.2 of 22 September 2023 evaluates in its supervisory attributions and establishes
3 26 July	of 2023	Leyla Beatriz Sotil Gómez	Oscar Fernando Guizado Vargas.
4	12 September 2023	- Ingrid del Pilar Rojas Puga. - David Angel Valencia Espinoza.	JORGE DE OLAZABAL

	- Juan Félix Chumbiray Uribe. - Cruz Arturo Vallejos Tapia. - Brayan Yamir Asenjo Tello. - Ernesto Alejandro Iglesias Pinto. - Natalia Estefanía Reyes Vargas. - Yimy Sullón Yarleque.		that certain shareholders with less than 10% participation in the share capital do not have the solvency to be shareholders of a collective fund management company: 16.Oscar Fernando Guizado Vargas. Oficio N° 4901-2023-SMV/10.2 of 27 October 2023 and Oficio N°4928-2023-SMV/10.2 of 31 October 2023 evaluates, denies and resolves reconsideration confirming the denial to shareholders who had more than 10% participation in the share capital: 17.JESSICA BOCANEGRA. Resolución de Intendencia General de Supervisión de Entidades N° 121-2023-SMV/10.2 of 06 November 2023 evaluates and denies to shareholders who had more than 10% participation in the share capital: 18.JORGE DE OLAZABAL.
5	27 September 2023	Oscar Fernando Guizado Vargas	JESSICA BOCANEGRA.
6	25 October 2023	JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL	JESSICA BOCANEGRA.

ON THE EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY

That, through Oficios N° 3379-2023-SMV/10.2 and N° 3476-2023-SMV/10.2 of 20 and 25 July 20236, respectively, it was ordered to carry out an inspection visit to PLAN RENTABLE, in which, among other aspects, the following were evaluated:

[6] Exp. N° 2023031179.

the software of the collective funds system and of the company's accounting, as part of the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity of said company;

That, as a result of the indicated inspection, through the Acta de Evaluación sobre Softwares del Sistema de Fondos Colectivos y de Contabilidad of 21 August 2023 and the Acta de Finalización de visita de inspección a PLAN RENTABLE of 13 September 2023, both signed by SMV officials and representatives of PLAN RENTABLE during the inspection visit, the company was warned of the serious situation of its accounting systems;

That, by Informe N° 1276-2023-SMV/10.2 (INFORME CAPACIDAD TECNOLÓGICA) the compliance by PLAN RENTABLE with the provisions of numeral 5 of Annex 4 and Annex 5 of the REGLAMENTO was evaluated, regarding the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and minimum conditions of technological capacity, and some non-compliances with said provisions were reported;

That, subsequently, through Oficio N°4383-2023- SMV/10 of 27 September 2023, PLAN RENTABLE was notified of the non-compliance with the technological capacity provided in numeral 5 of Annex 4 and Annex 5 of the Reglamento, granting it a period of three (3) business days, extended by Oficio N° 4482-2023-SMV/10, to reverse the situation detected;

That, in response to the aforementioned, through writings of 2 and 5 October 2023, PLAN RENTABLE submitted documentation with the purpose of remedying the non-compliances detected related to the minimum conditions of technological capacity;

That, by Oficio N° 4626-2023-SMV/10.2, the documentation submitted was evaluated and it was determined that PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with reversing the situation of non-observance referred to in the INFORME CAPACIDAD TECNOLÓGICA;

That, thus, through Resolución de Superintendente N° 085-2023-SMV/02 it was declared that PLAN RENTABLE incurred an additional cause for suspension of its operating authorization for not having the minimum conditions of physical infrastructure and technological capacity established in numeral 5 of Annex 4 and Annex 5 of the REGLAMENTO. Consequently, it was incorporated as an additional cause for the suspension of the operating authorization;

That, subsequently, on 31 October 2023, PLAN RENTABLE sent documentation in response to Oficio 4626-2023-SMV/10.2. From the evaluation of the information submitted, it was determined through Informe N° 1496-2023- SMV/10.2 of 6 November 2023, that PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with all the requirements indicated in Oficios N° 4383-2023-SMV/10 and 4626-2023-SMV/10.2;

That, finally, regarding the non-compliances with the minimum conditions of technological capacity, PLAN RENTABLE presents in its reconsideration appeal, as new evidence, a document entitled “INFORME PERICIAL Pronunciamiento sobre: - Cumplimiento de observaciones realzadas a PLAN RENTABLE PERU SAC.” (hereinafter, the INFORME SOBRE OBSERVACIONES DE CAPACIDAD TECNOLÓGICA);

That, the INFORME SOBRE OBSERVACIONES DE CAPACIDAD TECNOLÓGICA refers to the observations identified in Informe N° 1496- 2023-SMV/10.2 of 6 November 2023 and concludes that PLAN RENTABLE complies with lifting the observations formulated by the IGSE;

That, next we will proceed to determine whether PLAN RENTABLE complies with the minimum conditions of technological capacity. According to Annex 4, numeral 5 and Annex 5 of the REGLAMENTO, technological capacity implies that the administrator has a computer system that allows keeping the accounting control of each group automatically, as well as having a computer system that allows the control of balances and movements of the contributions made by the Associates, interest generated by said contributions and the other reports and records for an adequate and timely administration of the information related to its activities of administration of Collective Funds;

That, it should be noted that, computer systems, including accounting, operational or any other type, must have mechanisms to preserve the integrity, confidentiality and availability of information, this implies that the information must be updated and that the system allows the issuance of updated accounting and operational reports;

That, in order to facilitate the analysis to determine whether through the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY the observations referred to the minimum conditions of technological capacity determined through Report No. 1496-2023-SMV/10.2 have been resolved, below we detail said observations in the following table (hereinafter, ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496):

REQUIREMENT REQUESTED BY SMV	ANNEX 7	SUPPORT ATTACHED	EVALUATION RESULT
Procedures manual on access control to the database from the PRP system to the new program	Annex 1	Procedure for secure access control to the database from the Accounting Entries Extractor program.	The manual submitted by Plan Rentable does not have detailed procedures; likewise, it does not indicate who are the responsible persons to authorize access to the Database. On the other hand, a face-to-face meeting was requested at the offices of PLAN RENTABLE with the personnel who implemented (Developer) the Database and Database Administrators of the PRP software (Anida) via email on 22 August 2023; it should be noted that as of the final date of the inspection visit, said meeting was not held. In this sense, it is not corroborated that the IT systems manager

[7] Annexes presented by Plan Rentable, through file 2023039654.

			has the permissions to access the Database of the PRP software. Likewise, the access request flow to the Database is not identified in the procedure manual. Result: Did not comply
Report on start and percentage of development progress	Annex 2	Technical Report - Automatic generation of accounting entries for Winconta	The software development progress process is not evidenced. Result: Did not comply
Report on needs of the new program based on the process of transferring data packages between the software of the collective funds system and accounting	Annex 3	Needs report	The Needs Report does not contain the requirements, processes and subprocesses to automate the data transfer between the PRP software and WINCONTA, as well as accounting, operations and collection requirements. Likewise, the detail of each process is not observed, specifically the operation and logic of the process. Said needs report must allow the corroboration that the modules and automated processes comply with the objective for which the software was implemented. Result: Did not comply
Implementation report	Annex 4	Implementation report of the accounting entries extractor.	It does not present the system programming, source code, implemented modules, database (Tables). Result: Did not comply
Delivery support document	Annex 5	Certificate of delivery of software development/information system.	It does not present the documents that support the operation and delivery of the system to corroborate the completion of the system implementation. Said document must verify the conformity of the implemented software. Result: Did not comply
User manual	Annex 6	User manual of	It does not present a guide of the modules and processes of the system
		accounting entries extractor	detailing the functionality they perform to guide the end user. Result: Did not comply
Evaluation of the Accounting Software of the Collective Funds System	Annex 7	- Automatic identification of member deposits - Elimination of manual modification of Excel files - Discrimination of payments by contracts	The accounting software does not only imply the initial capture of certain information. What is described in the indicated annex refers specifically to the form of identification of the member by the Bank, however, the process of capturing the bank's information by the operating and accounting software system is not described, nor how the account statements of each member are generated in the operational control and in the accounting control. Likewise, the generation of accounting books as required by the REGULATION is not evidenced. The processes described must be written in detail in a user manual, so the correction of what was observed cannot be evidenced. Result: Did not comply

That, first of all, it should be highlighted that in order to verify that PLAN RENTABLE has corrected the observations of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496, Report 07-2023/TI prepared by Mr. Diego Lozano Marroquín, responsible for Information Technologies of PLAN RENTABLE (hereinafter, IT REPORT OF PLAN RENTABLE), is presented, through which he explains in detail how, under his analysis, PLAN RENTABLE complies with the aforementioned observations;

That, Literal A of the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY rules on the first requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496. This first requirement is called OBSERVATION 1 in the aforementioned report. According to the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY, it has been evidenced that the IT REPORT OF PLAN RENTABLE explains how OBSERVATION 1 is complied with:

"Our company has an Information Technology staff member who is responsible for our technological infrastructure, Mr. Diego Lozano Marroquín, who fulfills the following functions and Roles: to administer all our technological infrastructure and to administer the database; he is the only person responsible who accesses these mentioned services, this point being clarified. Attached in annex No. 1

30

images of our technological infrastructure and the request flow to the database."

That, on this point, OBSERVATION 1 requested the procedure on access control to the database from the PRP system to the new program, as well as the list of persons responsible for authorizing access to the Database. However, PLAN RENTABLE, through the aforementioned Annex No. 1, has not presented the procedure for controlling access to the database;

That, in this regard, PLAN RENTABLE did not submit in its reconsideration appeal the Procedures Manual on access control to the database from the PRP system to the new program. The REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY refers to the IT REPORT OF PLAN RENTABLE to support that this OBSERVATION 1 has been lifted, however in said report only how the Extractor application works is developed;

That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in the inspection visit carried out on 10 January 2024, it delivered an updated document entitled “Access control procedure to the database”, which complies with developing the steps to request access permissions to modify or consult the database. Therefore, OBSERVATION 1 has been remedied;

That, regarding the second information requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496, referring to the Report on the start and percentage of progress of the development, the observation of said annex states the following: “The process of progress of the software development is not evidenced”. PLAN RENTABLE does not comment on this point in its REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY. However, by letter of 31 October 2023 they stated that their information technology area is an internal department and due to this, they verify daily the progress of the requirement made by the IGSE. Therefore, since the requested information was not delivered, the second requirement has not been remedied;

That, now then, the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY states as observation 2 the following: “Verification of the development of the extractor application”. In this regard, they state that they have received Report 04-2023/TI of 5 October 2023 and Report 07-2023/TI of 22 November 2023, on the development of the extractor application, which has been developed based on the proposal of the IT area, in order to comply with the observations made by the SMV;

That, in principle, it must be taken into account that the observation that PLAN RENTABLE qualifies as “Observation 2” does not correspond to the second requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496. This corresponds to the implementation report of the Extractor application. This application does not address the second requirement of the Annex of Report No. 1496, it is only limited to developing a specific process of the system;

That, furthermore, the reports presented (Report 04-2023/TI and Report 07-2023/TI) do not correspond to the information that was requested at the time and that referred to the Implementation Report of the PRP and Winconta system;

31

That, in that sense, the observation referring to the Report on the start and percentage of progress of the development (second requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496), has not been remedied;

That, as regards the third information requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496, referring to the Report on needs of the new program based on the process of transfer of data packages between the softwares of the collective funds and accounting system, it must be taken into account that said report must detail all the processes to be automated;

That, in this regard, PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with presenting the Report on needs for the PRP system and the Winconta system, but rather through the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY it refers to topics not related to the observation such as the operation and logic of the Extractor application, which shows the obtaining of the accounting entries from the database, the method that generates the Excel files, the documentation of need and the protection of the file against writing by means of a random password;

That, likewise, the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY refers to Memorandum 061-2023/GG-PRPSAC-EAFC of 6 October 2023, by means of which the General Manager of PLAN RENTABLE communicates to the IT area the implementation of the Extractor application;

That, for the reasons set forth above, PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with remedying the third information requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496;

That, regarding the fourth requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496 on the Implementation Report of the Extractor of accounting entries, the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY refers to the source code of the extractor application;

That, likewise, in relation to the fourth requirement, the IT REPORT OF PLAN RENTABLE states the following:

“In its new version of the procedure of the manual of the accounting entry generator, it details step by step the stages and validations that this scheduled task performs, we attach the path of the cloud drive, the txt file in it details line by line the statements that this executable App.WincontaSD.exe performs, which is not considered a module within the PRP system which for obvious reasons this executable does not contain a database.”

That, in this regard, PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with presenting the Implementation Report of the PRP system. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE states that it is not feasible to present the implementation report of the Winconta system because it is a service that is not developed by the entity itself;

That, therefore, it is evidenced that PLAN RENTABLE does not comply with remedying the fourth requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496;

32

That, regarding the fifth requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496 on the document supporting the delivery of the development of the administrative system of collective funds and accounting, annexes 1-J and 1-K of the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY contain two documents: (i) the delivery certificate of executable and (ii) conformity certificate;

That, on the matter, PLAN RENTABLE through the delivery and conformity certificates of the executable has not complied with submitting what was required because said documents only prove that the Extractor application has been delivered, which is a specific automated procedure, but does not refer to the delivery and conformity of the comprehensive PRP and Winconta system;

That, therefore, PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with remedying the fifth requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496;

That, regarding the sixth requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496 on the User Manual, the observation raised in said annex states the following: “It does not present a guide of the modules and processes of the system detailing the functionality they perform to guide the end user”. (Underlined by us);

That, in this regard, PLAN RENTABLE presents a User Manual of the so-called “Generator of accounting entry data – GDAC Profile: Manager Version 2.0”. The Manual presented is a guide for the end user of the generator application for accounting entry data. Said application has been implemented for the purpose of transferring information from the PRP system to Winconta automatically. However, according to the sixth requirement, PLAN RENTABLE must develop a manual specifying the processes that the system user (in this case, PRP and Winconta) must follow;

That, additionally, during the inspection visit of 10 January 2024, they present the User Manual of the Accounting Entry Extractor, said manual refers specifically to the accounting entry extraction process and the user manual of the PRP system called “SPR” and not of the Winconta system. However, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, according to the sixth requirement, PLAN RENTABLE must develop a manual specifying the processes that the user of the PRP and Winconta system must follow. That is, the requirement is not remedied merely by developing a specific topic;

That, in that sense, the document called “Generator for accounting entry data GDAC” and the “User Manual of the Accounting Entry Extractor”, do not remedy the sixth requirement. Without prejudice to this, during the inspection visit carried out on 10 January 2024, PLAN RENTABLE delivered the “User Manual of the Plan Rentable SPR System of 2019”, which develops a guide explaining the operation of the implemented modules of the PRP system. With said delivery, the requirement of the comprehensive manual specifying the processes for the system user is not complied with. Therefore, the sixth requirement is not remedied;

That, regarding the seventh requirement of the ANNEX OF REPORT No. 1496 on the evaluation of the Accounting Software of the Collective Funds System, in the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY, and with the purpose of proving that the observations referring to the Accounting Software of the Collective Funds System are remedied, PLAN RENTABLE attaches the screen of the cover of the User Manual of the Plan Rentable SPR System of 2019 (hereinafter, SYSTEM MANUAL). Plan Rentable states that what is described about the process of capturing bank information by the operating and accounting software system is detailed in the user manual of the PLAN RENTABLE SPR system;

That, in this regard, it must be considered first that the system that PLAN RENTABLE is implementing is called Plan Rentable Perú (PRP) and not SPR and that the SYSTEM MANUAL, despite being from 2019, was not presented during the 2023 inspection process. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE has submitted only the cover of the SYSTEM MANUAL, with which it has not complied with presenting in its reconsideration appeal what is required to verify that the observations referring to the minimum conditions of technological capacity and accounting systems have indeed been lifted. It should be noted that non-legible pages were attached, such as those referring to sections 3.1 Associated Contracts, 3.1.1 New Sale, 3.1.2 Special Contracts and 3.1.3 Contract Update;

That, it must be taken into account that the operational process of collective funds does not only have the process of new contracts. In that sense, the Procedures Manual must include all operations related to the operational and accounting part of the management of the Collective Fund, which has not been included;

That, the screens referred to in the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY are illegible, with which the development of the operational and accounting procedures of the collective funds cannot be verified. However, the requirement of this information was attended to in the inspection visit in which PLAN RENTABLE delivers the document called: Generator for accounting entry data – GDAC;

That, on this point, we will refer in the section of this report where the latest information presented by PLAN RENTABLE on 11 January 2024 is analyzed.

ON THE INSPECTION OF PLAN RENTABLE

That, PLAN RENTABLE requested in its reconsideration appeal to carry out an inspection visit to its facilities in order to corroborate that it has its operating and accounting systems;

That, in relation to its request, through Official Letter No. 103-2024-SMV/10.2 of 9 January 2023, PLAN RENTABLE was informed that the referred inspection visit would be carried out on 10 January 2024;

That, as a result of the inspection visit, a record was drawn up to record the facts that could be verified regarding the minimum conditions of technological capacity and accounting systems.

On the Extractor application

That, it was verified that PLAN RENTABLE has implemented an application called “Extractor” that transfers information from the PRP system to the Winconta system automatically. This application allows information to be transferred without manual intervention; therefore, in that transfer the files generated by the application cannot be modified or deleted;

That, it should be noted that the Winconta system is a service or "package" that does not allow access to the internal information processed in said system. Due to this, during the inspection it has not been possible to verify the technical structure of the system for the issuance of the journal, general ledger, trial balance and other operational reports;

That, in order to verify the proper functioning of the Winconta system, it was required to monitor a collection transaction of an associate. However, it could not be verified that the Winconta system processed that transaction and generated the respective accounting books with the indicated transaction, as demonstrated on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the Inspection Report of 10 January 2024.

Of the accounting and operational procedures

That, in relation to the generation of accounting entries, PLAN RENTABLE presented two manuals: the SPR 2019 System User Manual and the Operational Procedures Manual. In neither of said manuals could the procedure for the generation of accounting entries be verified;

That, regarding the accounting reports, a test was carried out to verify that the new Extractor application issues the accounting reports. For this purpose, a bank statement of the dollar collecting account for 15 December 2023 was requested. Previously, it was verified in the current account statement of the collecting account that it had movements for collection income;

That, as part of the test, the general ledger report of the aforementioned collecting account was requested and it was verified that said report did not record the movement of 15.12.23 that appeared in the bank current account statement;

That, additionally, the trial balance was requested and it was verified that it also does not record operations on the day selected as a test;

That, from the tests carried out, it was determined that the accounting books are not generated with the information from the system, and therefore, there is no updated and reliable accounting information, as required by Annex 5 of the REGLAMENTO, according to which the technological capacity assumes that the administrator has a computer system that allows keeping the accounting control of each group automatically, as well as the control of balances and movements of the contributions made by the Associates. That is, PLAN RENTABLE's computer systems, including the accounting and operational ones, do not have mechanisms to preserve the integrity, confidentiality and availability of the information.

OF THE EXPANDED INFORMATION PRESENTED BY PLAN RENTABLE

That, by means of a document dated 11 January 2024, PLAN RENTABLE presented the following documentation:

Expanded report

That, in the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY it is indicated that the process of capturing the bank information by the operational and accounting software system is contained on pages 21 to 24 of the SYSTEM MANUAL, however, on said pages nothing in this regard is developed;

That, in this regard, PLAN RENTABLE has presented an Expanded Report, where it states that the expert made an error in the REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY by referring to pages 21 to 24 of the SYSTEM MANUAL that supposedly explains the procedure for identifying the collection and its respective accounting record;

That, regarding the aforementioned, it was verified that on pages 62 to 64 of the SYSTEM MANUAL the process of identifying the collection and accounting record is developed. Additionally, during the inspection visit PLAN RENTABLE delivered a document called "Manual of Procedure for identifying payments by contract". Said manual, issued on 22 November 2023, describes in greater detail the identification of payments by contract. However, during the inspection, PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with operationally executing what is described in said manual, because the operational and accounting system does not have the information that allows validating the procedure developed in its manual.

Proof of presentation of the Operational Processes Manual

That, PLAN RENTABLE states that it has complied with delivering the Operational Processes Manual with the formalities required by the REGLAMENTO, for which it presents a proof of sending said information through the MVNet System. In this regard, none of the procedures detailed in said manual develops the process of the accounting record of the operational procedures that ultimately generate information for the proper accounting record. There is no manual that details the accounting entries generated by each operational process;

On the issuance of accounting books

That, regarding the issuance of the accounting books, PLAN RENTABLE states that its system issues the respective accounting books, but that its accounting information is in the process of being updated;

That, in order to verify the issuance of the accounting records, it was requested to monitor a collection income of the dollar operating account dated 15/12/2023. However, PLAN RENTABLE did not issue the accounting record of said transaction, nor the issuance of the respective accounting books containing the selected transaction. This fact was recorded in the Inspection Report of 10 January 2024;

That, in that sense, it is evidenced that PLAN RENTABLE does not have an accounting computer system that complies with having available and updated information that allows the issuance of accounting and operational reports, in accordance with the provisions of Annex 4, numeral 5 and Annex 5 of the REGLAMENTO;

That, in accordance with what has been developed and analyzed above, PLAN RENTABLE has not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the decision adopted by Superintendente Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02, since it has not complied with proving that Messrs. JORGE DE OLAZÁBAL and JESSICA BOCANEGRA meet the economic solvency required by articles 4 and 12 of the NORMAS COMUNES, to be shareholders with a participation of 77.25% and 22.75%, respectively, of the share capital of PLAN RENTABLE, nor with the minimum conditions of technological capacity; in addition to not having accredited or verified any ground for nullity of the RESOLUCIÓN DE REVOCATORIA;

That with regard to PLAN RENTABLE's request for the effects of the RESOLUCIÓN DE REVOCATORIA to be suspended in application of numeral 226.2 of article 226 of the TUO LPAG, it must be taken into account that the revocation of the operating authorization proceeds when the conditions that gave rise to the suspension of said authorization subsist, in accordance with article 85, subsection c) of the REGLAMENTO. In that sense, it must be taken into account that the current legal framework has provided that the suspension of the operating authorization for not having the minimum conditions to operate is an administrative act that cannot be appealed in the administrative venue. This, due to the need to prevent a company that fails to comply with the minimum operating requirements from continuing to operate in the market. Consequently, in view of the need to apply immediate measures to prevent an entity that does not comply with the minimum conditions required by the regulations from continuing to operate in the market, it is appropriate to deny the request for suspension of the effects of the RESOLUCIÓN DE REVOCATORIA, since, as with suspension, it is necessary that the effects of the revocation be immediately enforceable in order to guarantee that only entities that comply with the minimum requirements operate in the market; and,

In accordance with the provisions of article 219 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444 approved by Supreme Decree No. 009-2021;

RESOLVES:

Article 1.- Declare unfounded the reconsideration appeal filed by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. against Superintendente Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02.

Article 2.- Consider the administrative venue exhausted.

Article 3.- Transcribe this resolution to Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C.

Article 4.- Publish this resolution on the institutional page of the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores on the single digital platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv).

Register, communicate and publish.

Reason: Digitally signed by: MASIAS QUIROGA LORENA

Signed by: MASIAS QUIROGA LORENA

Lorena Masias Quiroga
Superintendent of the Securities Market

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