Hazel Le Goff May 15, 2010:

My website reference is erroneous - apologies.
This is the pdf reference.
To access the document regarding differentiation, just Google 'Cross-border distribution of UCITs' and the first hit brings you to a pdf in which 'differentiation' appears.

david angel (X) (asker) May 14, 2010:

Actually, I have got the context a bit wrong here. Sorry! According to the rules, the assets must be segregated and must be committed tro custody (particular rules). The bank did not foillow these rules but had a statement to that effect in the full prospectus. What the "critere" refers to I can't work out grammatically. It also seems to me that whoever wrote the word "distinction" is as it were apologising for it by putting it into inverted commas.

david angel (X) (asker) May 14, 2010:

Hi. The statement is part of a UCIT's defence against an accusation of failing to follow proper procedures concerned with the custody and segregation of assets held by the fund. The accusation is that it did not mention facts concerning custody and segregation of assets in the full fund prospectus. Very roughly, the investment fund is arguing that it did not have to follow the regulation literally, the regulation that is to publish certain facts, because publication in the prospectus is either unnecessary or proper custody and segregation is imposed anyway. I hope that helps - most of the doc is clear enough but this part is puzzling.

B D Finch May 14, 2010:

More context? What is the "critère"? Is it something to do with distinguishing or identifying the shares involved? If so, it seems to be saying that where the shares are subject to "ségrégation", "distinction" (the "critère") is thus achieved.