WAYSTONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (LUX) S.A.

• LiftedCommission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF)

  UCITS

  In this state since

  23 Oct 2026

  Designated

  9 Jul 2026

  Reason given

  En date du 9 juillet 2026, la CSSF a prononcé une amende administrative d’un montant total de 71.500 euros à l’encontre d’un gestionnaire de fonds d’investissement (le « GFI »), soumis aux dispositions du chapitre 15 de la loi modifiée du 17 décembre 2010 relative aux organismes de placement collectif (la « Loi OPC ») et agréé en tant que gestionnaire de fonds d’investissement alternatifs conformément aux dispositions de la loi modifiée du 12 juillet 2013 relative aux gestionnaires de fonds d’investissement alternatifs (la « Loi GFIA»). L’amende administrative se compose : • d’un montant de 47.320 euros imposé en application des dispositions de l’article 148, paragraphe 2, point j), et de l’article 148, paragraphe 4, point e), de la Loi OPC, pris conjointement, pour non-respect des dispositions de l’article 110, paragraphe 1, point b), de la Loi OPC concernant l’obligation de disposer d’un cadre de surveillance efficace tenant compte au mieux des intérêts des investisseurs, ainsi que des dispositions de l’article 110, paragraphe 1, point f), de la Loi OPC concernant la supervision des délégataires; et • un montant de 24.180 euros imposé en application des dispositions de l’article 51, paragraphe 1, premier tiret, et de l’article 51, paragraphe 2, premier alinéa, troisième tiret, de la Loi GFIA, lus conjointement, pour non-respect des dispositions de l’article 18, paragraphe 1, point e), de la Loi GFIA concernant les exigences relatives à la mise en place d’un cadre de surveillance efficace tenant compte au mieux des intérêts des investisseurs, ainsi que des dispositions de l’article 18, paragraphe 1, point f), de la Loi GFIA concernant la supervision des délégataires. Cette amende administrative fait suite à un contrôle sur place effectué par la CSSF entre le 18 septembre 2024 et le 10 octobre 2024 (le « Contrôle sur place ») auprès du GFI, axée sur la gouvernance d’entreprise. Au cours du Contrôle sur place, la CSSF a identifié des lacunes persistantes dans le cadre de la gouvernance interne du GFI, qui portaient sur les points suivants : Renouvellement insuffisant des évaluations de diligence continue des délégataires : La CSSF a conclu qu’un nombre important de gestionnaires de portefeuille délégués n’avaient en réalité pas fait l’objet d’une diligence périodique formalisée, conformément à la matrice de risques du GFI. Le non-respect de l’approche fondée sur les risques requise a empêché le GFI d’évaluer de manière adéquate si les activités déléguées répondaient continuellement aux exigences légales et aux obligations contractuelles. De ce fait, la CSSF a conclu qu’au moment du Contrôle sur place, le GFI ne s’est pas conformé pas au point 468 de la Circulaire CSSF 18/698 précisant l’article 13 de la Directive OPCVM 2009/65/CE (transposée par l’article 110 de la Loi OPC), et l’article 75 du Règlement Délégué (UE) n° 231/2013 sur les GFIA, complétant l’article 20 de la Directive GFIA 2011/61/UE (qui est transposée par l’article 18 de la Loi GFIA). • Évaluation insuffisante du processus de meilleure exécution des délégataires : La CSSF a constaté des lacunes concernant l’évaluation des processus de meilleure exécution des délégataires — notamment en ce qui concerne les procédures, les contrôles et la sélection des courtiers. L’absence d’évaluation de ces processus présente des risques importants pour le GFI, les fonds sous gestion et les investisseurs. Ces constatations constituent une violation du point 495 de la Circulaire CSSF 18/698, qui exige un examen des procédures de meilleure exécution et de sélection des courtiers des délégataires. En conséquence, la CSSF a conclu qu’au moment de l’inspection, le GFI ne se conformait pas au point 495 de la Circulaire CSSF 18/698 précisant l’article 13 de la Directive OPCVM 2009/65/CE (transposée par l’article 110 de la Loi OPC). • Suivi continu insuffisant des délégataires en ce qui concerne les principes de meilleure exécution : La CSSF a constaté que le GFI s’appuyait exclusivement sur les confirmations des gestionnaires de portefeuille, sans procéder à des vérifications indépendantes. Dans l’ensemble, la conception du cadre de surveillance du GFI empêchait une surveillance adéquate du respect des principes de meilleure exécution. Ce manque de contrôle enfreint les points 442 et 496 de la Circulaire CSSF 18/698, qui exigent un suivi efficace et une vérification continue de la conformité des délégataires. En conséquence, la CSSF a conclu que, au moment du Contrôle sur place, le GFI ne se conformait pas aux points 442 et 496 de la Circulaire CSSF 18/698 précisant l’article 13 de la Directive OPCVM 2009/65/CE (transposée par l’article 110 de la Loi OPC). [original (French)] On 9 July 2026, the CSSF imposed an administrative fine amounting to EUR 71,500 in total on an investment fund manager (the “Manager”) subject to Chapter 15 of the amended Law of 17 December 2010 relating to undertakings for collective investment (the “Law of 2010”) and authorised as alternative investment fund manager according to the provisions of the amended Law of 12 July 2013 on alternative investment fund managers (the “AIFM Law”). The administrative fine is composed of: • an amount of EUR 47,320 imposed pursuant to Article 148(2)(j) and Article 148(4)(e) of the Law of 2010, read together, for failure to comply with the provisions of Article 110(1)(b) of the Law of 2010 regarding the requirements to have an effective supervisory framework considering the best interest of the investors, and with the provisions of Article 110(1)(f) of the Law of 2010 regarding the supervision of delegates; and • an amount of EUR 24,180 imposed pursuant to Article 51(1), first indent, and Article 51(2), first subparagraph, third indent of the AIFM Law, read together, for failure to comply with the provisions of Article 18(1)(e) of the AIFM Law regarding the requirements to have an effective supervisory framework considering the best interest of the investors, and with the provisions of Article 18(1)(f) of the AIFM Law regarding the supervision of delegates. In order to determine the type and amount of the administrative sanction to be imposed on the basis of each of the applicable laws, the CSSF considered, pursuant to Article 149a of the Law of 2010 and Article 51(2), last subparagraph of the AIFM Law, respectively, (i) the gravity and duration of the breaches existing at the time of the on-site inspection, (ii) the conduct and past record of the Manager, (iii) the level of cooperation of the Manager with the CSSF as well as (iv) the fact that the Manager provided a detailed action plan and initiated remedial actions in order to resolve the breaches identified. This administrative fine is imposed following an on-site inspection performed from 18 September 2024 to 10 October 2024 (the “Inspection”) on the Manager, focusing on the corporate governance. During the Inspection the CSSF identified persistent deficiencies in the internal governance framework of the Manager which related to the following points: • Inadequate renewal of the ongoing diligence assessments of delegates: Our Commission concludes that a significant number of delegated portfolio managers had not actually undergone formalized periodic due diligence in accordance with the Manager’s risk matrix. The failure to apply the required risk-based approach prevented the Manager from adequately assessing whether delegated activities have continuously met legal requirements and contractual obligations. As such, the CSSF concluded that, at the time of the Inspection, the Manager did not comply with point 468 of the CSSF Circular 18/698 specifying Article 13 of the UCITS Directive 2009/65/EC (which is transposed by Article 110 of the UCITS Law), and Article 75 of the AIFM Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 supplementing Article 20 of the AIFM Directive 2011/61/EU (which is transposed by Article 18 of the AIFM Law). • Insufficient assessment of the best execution process of delegates: The CSSF noted deficiencies regarding the assessment of the delegate’s best execution processes — specifically concerning procedures, controls, and broker selection. The failure to assess these processes poses significant risks to the Company, the funds under management, and the investors. These observations constitute a breach of Point 495 of CSSF Circular 18/698, which requires a review of the delegate’s best execution and broker selection procedures. Consequently, CSSF concluded that, at the time of the Inspection, the Manager did not comply with point 495 of the CSSF Circular 18/698 specifying Article 13 of the UCITS Directive 2009/65/EC (transposed by Article 110 of the UCITS Law). • Insufficient ongoing monitoring of delegates concerning the best execution principles: The CSSF noted that the Company relied exclusively on confirmations from portfolio managers without independent verifications. Overall, the design of the Company's monitoring framework prevented adequate oversight of best execution principles. This lack of control violates points 442 and 496 of CSSF Circular 18/698, which require effective monitoring and ongoing verification of delegate compliance. Consequently, CSSF concluded that, at the time of the Inspection, the Company did not comply with point 442 and 496 of the CSSF Circular 18/698 specifying Article 13 of the UCITS Directive 2009/65/EC (transposed by Article 110 of the UCITS Law).

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn15295)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  16 Oct 2026

  Listing id

  15295

No ownership verdict was on file for this company on 24 October 2026.

As recorded by the assessment reading taken on 23 October 2026, 12:15 UTC, the newest on or before the date. Only “checked, not found” means a source was read in full and held nothing for the company.

Where the company is registered or connected

• LU: registered here

  No company register for this jurisdiction has been connected to this system, and none has been examined. No register here states who owns this jurisdiction's companies, so an ownership chain reaching one stops.

• Whether each listing was in force is rebuilt from what was recorded here: when it was first read, when a source stopped or resumed carrying it, and when its published term ended. A listing in force at an authority before this system first read it is shown from that first read.
• No ownership verdict is kept for this company. Verdicts are kept for companies registered where shareholders are read here: Estonia, Latvia and Poland.

For each source behind this file, the newest read made on or before the date: the version of it that stood.

• Australia DFAT Consolidated List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 3,650 records read.

• Brazil CEIS (national procurement exclusions)

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 23,804 records read.

• Brazil MTE employer register (lista suja)

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 508 records read.

• Brazil TCU (firms declared inidôneas)

  Read on 22 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 94 records read.

• Canada Consolidated Autonomous Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 5,708 records read.

• EBRD Ineligible Entities

  Read on 22 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 1,278 records read.

• ESMA Sanctions Register

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 845 records read.

• EU Consolidated Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 15 October 2026, 4 days before it was read. 6,234 records read. Publisher's version: globalFileId 185699.

• France AMF blacklist of unauthorised actors

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,574 records read.

• France Registre national des gels

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,017 records read.

• IDB Sanctioned Firms and Individuals

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 530 records read.

• Japan MOF Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,900 records read.

• Latvia FID frozen assets register

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 183 records read.

• Malaysia BNM financial consumer alert list

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 588 records read.

• Malaysia SC investor alert list

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 1,795 records read.

• New Zealand Russia Sanctions Register

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 529 records read.

• Norges Bank (fund exclusions and observation)

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 201 records read.

• OFAC Consolidated (non-SDN)

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 14 September 2026, 35 days before it was read. 481 records read.

• OFAC SDN

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 15 October 2026, 4 days before it was read. 17,556 records read.

• Poland MSWiA sanctions list

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 131 records read.

• SAM.gov Exclusions (US federal)

  Read on 24 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 10,194 records read.

• Swiss FINMA warning list

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,372 records read.

• Switzerland SECO Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 15 October 2026, 4 days before it was read. 7,040 records read.

• Taiwan SHTC export entity list

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 11,664 records read.

• Türkiye MASAK asset freezes

  Read on 22 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,304 records read.

• UK Sanctions List (FCDO)

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 16 October 2026, 3 days before it was read. 5,705 records read.

• UN Security Council Consolidated List

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 17 October 2026, 2 days before it was read. 1,010 records read.

• US CBP forced-labour orders (WRO & Findings)

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 63 records read.

• US UFLPA Entity List

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 205 records read.

• World Bank Listing of Ineligible Firms and Individuals

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 1,539 records read.

Taken

23 October 2026, 12:15 UTC

Methodology

Version 5

Level

Low

Score recorded

25 of 100

Digest

369decd83a42e24f6484138a96da9c240211383fA fingerprint of everything the reading says. The same reading always has this digest, and any change in it gives another.

Reading id

fe6f6e22-c86e-4877-b76d-97fb07eaedaf

Address

https://apolika.com/entities/9013f66a-968a-4420-84cb-abdff21c8cd0/evidence?as_of=2026-10-24The same address gives the same day's file tomorrow. What was recorded after the date is not in it.

As data

https://apolika.com/api/entities/9013f66a-968a-4420-84cb-abdff21c8cd0/evidence?as_of=2026-10-24T17%3A53%3A48.083Z

Made

24 October 2026, 17:53 UTC