OpenLobby.EU
Explore

NASDAQ

NASDAQ is the world's largest exchange company, delivering trading, exchange technology and public company services across six continents with over 3,600 listed companies.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Marlene Rosemarie Madsen (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen)

22 Jan 2026 · Savings and Investments Union including the Market Infrastructure and Supervision Package and the Digitalisation of securities markets (including tokenised securities)

Meeting with Alexandra Hild (Cabinet of Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva), Andreas Schwarz (Cabinet of Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva), Elena Martines (Cabinet of Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva)

27 Nov 2025 · Exchange on IPOs of European startups and scaleups

Meeting with Adnan Dibrani (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair) and Finance Sweden and

13 Nov 2025 · Savings and investment union

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

7 Nov 2025 · Savings and Investments Union (SIU) Financial Literacy Pensions Regulation and deepening of the Internal Market

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

6 Nov 2025 · Savings and Investments Union Pensions Supervision Financial Literacy

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

24 Sept 2025 · SIU – Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and Regulation (MiFIR)

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Sept 2025 · Recent developments in financial markets, SIU and give an update on Nordic Markets

Meeting with Damian Boeselager (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Sept 2025 · SIU

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

9 Sept 2025 · SIU –Market integration

Nasdaq Urges Simplified National Savings and Investment Accounts

8 Jul 2025
Topic — The European Commission is creating a blueprint for national savings and investment products across Europe.
Message — Nasdaq proposes national savings and investment accounts to unlock passive capital for economic growth. They advocate for simplified tax reporting and flat taxes to make accounts attractive to investors. They also recommend allowing investments in securities without geographical restrictions or minimum holding periods.123
Why — Higher trading volumes would increase revenue for Nasdaq's stock exchanges and multilateral trading platforms.45
Impact — Competitors using selective matching systems lose access to retail order flow from these accounts.6
Read full response

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Acting Principal Adviser Research and Innovation)

3 Jul 2025 · Representatives of Nasdaq Stockholm met with Task Force members on topics related to financing startups and scaleups through public equity markets.

Meeting with Eric Ducoulombier (Acting Director Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

3 Jul 2025 · Exchange of views on the initiatives included in the Savings and Investments Union communication

Meeting with Alexandr Hobza (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné), Vincent Hurkens (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

28 May 2025 · Aspects related to financial markets, Savings and investment Union

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

22 May 2025 · SIU - Targeted Consultation on capital market integration

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Euronext and

16 May 2025 · Exchange with trading venues on the integration of EU capital market

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

2 Apr 2025 · Savings and Investments Union – discussion with Swedish financial market infrastructure representatives

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

24 Mar 2025 · Discussion on market and regulatory developments

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

20 Mar 2025 · Exchange with representative of Nasdaq on markets in Europe

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

18 Mar 2025 · CSDR, MiFID

Response to Savings and Investments Union

6 Mar 2025

Nasdaq feedback to the European Commissions Call for Evidence on the Savings and Investment Union: 1. Make it easier to list and trade by streamlining legal and regulatory frameworks. To support especially SMEs, it's crucial to streamline and harmonize EU legislation by ensuring transparency without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens. In particular to support companies in the scale-up phase, and to simultaneously allow smaller investors to be included in the growth journey, the regulatory environment needs to stay appropriate even when smaller companies become listed. Nasdaq Nordics has many smaller companies listed. We still observe a misperception that companies listed on exchanges are large and are able to manage almost any administrative burden. To realise the aim to better fund the scale-up phase across all regions in Europe, legislation needs to recognise that small companies should face a reasonable regulatory environment irrespective of the financing mix they opt for. 2. Attract offshore investors by making it easy and cheap to hold EU securities. To simplify and reduce costs for cross-border investments in the fragmented EU capital markets, it's essential to lower trade barriers and incentivize transparent on-venue platform transactions, addressing the challenges of extensive bilateral OTC trading for large institutional investors. 3. Harmonizing EU post-trade systems is key to reducing barriers, enhance capital access, and lower investment costs. To reduce investment costs and enhance capital access in Europe, it's crucial to lower post-trade complexity by harmonizing securities laws, technology, and CSD platforms, thereby increasing interconnectivity and interoperability among EU CSDs.From our experiences of operating across the Nordics and Baltics, we note that an important number of cross-border transactions simply do not take place due to inefficiencies in the post-trade space. We are convinced of the huge potential benefits of focusing policy measures in the post-trade area. 4. The European Commission should strongly foster national capital market action plans. Growth starts locally and smaller investors also tend to invest locally. Support of companies growth needs to have a strong local element. The national capital markets ecosystems as well as the macroeconomic situations are very different, including the fiscal capacity. The key measures that would improve each ecosystem are not the same everywhere. Examples of measures to prioritise may be simplification of tax reporting for retail investors, changes to pension systems, regional policy cooperation among certain ecosystems, fine-tuning of tax regimes for share dividends or the debt-equity bias, retail investor education, supervisory priorities and efficiencies, etc. The European Commission should explore all tools to foster capital markets action plans in each EU country, recognizing that these plans need to be specifically tailored to the varying features and starting points of each country. We would encourage taking inspiration from similar tools across other European Commission policy areas, such as the Semester. 5. Build the EU's risk capital base by unlocking pools of long-term risk capital from pension funds and retail investors. To boost EU capital market investments, it's essential to incentivize pension funds, encourage retail participation through favorable tax regimes and investment savings accounts, simplify market access, advance digitalization, and enhance financial education. We underline the importance of simplicity not only for companies, but for investors. Smaller investors, especially retail investors, need very low barriers in order to become active. The Swedish Investment Savings Account allows the investor to be active with zero hands-on reporting (its all automated) to the tax authorities and a predictable tax effect, while the state still receives a steady tax revenue on the value of the holdings in the account.
Read full response

Meeting with Lucilla Sioli (Director Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

24 Feb 2025 · Exchange of views on AI policy and the AI Act

Meeting with Roman Arjona (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

4 Feb 2025 · Recent economic developments in EU/US

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

3 Feb 2025 · PISCES trading platform

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

27 Jan 2025 · MiFID/MiFIR RTS1

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Bloomberg L.P. and

24 Jan 2025 · MiFIR Review

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and FTI Consulting Belgium and

21 Jan 2025 · Benchmark Regulation

Meeting with Larisa Dragomir (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque) and Nordea Bank Abp and

20 Jan 2025 · Exchange with ImpactEurope and Swedish companies on the the Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with Andras Inotai (Acting Principal Adviser Research and Innovation) and Nordea Bank Abp and

20 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views on the advancement of the Capital Markets Union in the EU, Discussion on the experiences from the Nordic capital markets

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Euronext and Federation of European Securities Exchanges

14 Jan 2025 · RTS on equity transparency- negotiated trades

Meeting with Aura Salla (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Nov 2024 · Recent development in financial markets and the Capital Market Union

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Oct 2024 · Capital Markets Union (roundtable)

Meeting with Markus Ferber (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Sept 2024 · Developments in financial markets and CMU

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Sept 2024 · Financial markets

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

13 Sept 2024 · Capital Markets Union and Retail Investment Strategy

Meeting with Marek Belka (Member of the European Parliament) and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

22 Feb 2024 · Economic developments in Europe

Meeting with Markus Ferber (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Feb 2024 · Nordic markets development

Meeting with Jonás Fernández (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

31 Jan 2024 · Benchmark Regulation

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and VAUNET - Verband Privater Medien e. V.

30 Nov 2023 · Artificial Intelligence

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

28 Nov 2023 · CMU, ESG reporting and Anti-Money Laundering

Meeting with Dorien Rookmaker (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

29 Jun 2023 · EMIR Revision: Stakeholder consultation

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

20 Jun 2023 · RIS, MIFID and the Listing Act

Meeting with Eva-Maria Alexandrova Poptcheva (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

7 Jun 2023 · Listing Act

Meeting with Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Jun 2023 · Listing Act

Meeting with Johan Van Overtveldt (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Apr 2023 · latest developments in financial markets, MiFID/MiFID and arrangements around market data in Europe

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Apr 2023 · Euro numérique

Meeting with Tsvetelina Penkova (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Apr 2023 · EUROFI

Meeting with Alfred Sant (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

19 Apr 2023 · Listing Act

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

11 Jan 2023 · MiFiD

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union) and Euronext and

10 Jun 2022 · Consolidated tape

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Apr 2022 · EU financial market developments in sustainable and digital finance

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

30 Mar 2022 · Consolidated tape, digital finance and Financial markets

Meeting with Danuta Maria Hübner (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

14 Mar 2022 · MiFIR Review

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Feb 2022 · Carbon removal initiatives, sustainable finance

Meeting with Roberto Viola (Director-General Communications Networks, Content and Technology)

18 Nov 2021 · Transatlantic Partnership, focusing on digital and sustainable agenda.

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

11 Nov 2021 · Review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation

Meeting with Arunas Ribokas (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius)

9 Nov 2021 · Meeting with Ludovic Aigrot, Vice President, Head of Government Relations Europe, NASDAQ, Topics discussed: state of play in preparation of the Commission proposed for MiFID II

Response to Supervisory fees and fines or penalty payments for DRSPs under ESMA supervision and the criteria for derogation

27 Aug 2021

Please see attached file. The proposed EU Commission delegated act on ESMA's authorisation and supervisory fees for DRSPs could have a dramatic effect on the DRSP sector. The method of fee calculation The delegated acts set out a proposed method of calculating annual supervisory fees so that the annual supervisory fee for a particular DRSP is determined by the percentage of their turnover compared to the entire DRSP market, the approach being similar to the one ESMA has taken to calculate fees in the context of Trade Repositories and Credit Rating Agencies. Our view is that - ESMA has ignored the fact that a Trade Repository is a facility that an investment firm cannot avoid if they are to continue their business involving derivatives or SFTR instruments – while many investment firms (at least in the Nordic countries) report today directly without involving an ARM. Therefore, an ARM raising the fees as a result of ESMA supervisory fees imposed on them will push the customer, an investment firm, to reconsider their current solution – where self-reporting – is always an option. - Smaller existing DRSPs will be forced, already in the last months of 2021, to make a business decision on the continuation of the licensed service or terminating it without knowing the economic terms for this decision as the ESMA supervisory fee will be unknown. This is the result of the size of the service fee increase necessary to keep break-even as well as the number of clients left willing to pay the new service fee, being also unknown. - Any investment firm needing a new DRSP will be facing the uncertainty of the new DRSP’s pricing, as no DRSP can before seeing the ESMA invoice at the beginning of year 2022 know with certainty the final size of the supervisory fee – and thus their own new service fee levels. - The method of calculation of the supervision fee for a given year (n) is based on historical data of the DRSP (turnover and reported number of transactions of the year n-2 or n-3). Considering the possibility of going over to self-reporting for ARM customers, which we see as a trend, and to minimize the strong negative impact of such a history-oriented method on smaller DRSPs, ESMA could consider making the fees “preliminary” and on year n+1 invoice make a re-calculation with reference to year n fees. This would be more in line with the actual figures- and turnover- for the DRSP. The level of supervisory fees Furthermore, considering the break-even (cost-recovery) for DRSPs and the size of their business, the applicable fees are disproportionately high. We note that ESMA justifies this on the basis that the proposed fees are in line with the minimum fees for a range of ESMA’s supervised entities, such as TRs under EMIR and SFTR. Based on the published financial data of some of these TRs, TR's supervisory fees represent a small percentage of their revenue. The situation for DRSPs is very different where the envisaged supervisory fees are much higher. Our guestimate suggests that our supervisory fee would be above 20% of the total revenue for data reporting services. The correlation between DRSP revenue and ESMA supervisory fees By making the amount of supervisory fees directly linked to historical revenue, ESMA is creating a barrier for DRSPs to expand and grow their existing businesses while small DRSPs that today fulfil derogation criteria, will be exposed to the future uncertainty of the fees should for instance one of their customers in another Member State quit their services, and thus make the 30/70 percent allowed division between services in Home Member State vs other Member State no longer valid. Therefore, a DRSP that will be avoiding ESMA supervision and therefore ESMA supervisory fees in 2022 may not do so in 2023, though their revenue, customer base and reported data have decreased and not increased. Such a DRSP that has so narrow derogation margin may renounce building their platform and service for the future.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

25 May 2021 · exchange of views on development of capital markets in US and EU. Sustainable finance agenda and digital agenda.

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

5 Mar 2021 · MiFID II/Market Structure/consolidated tape

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

9 Oct 2020 · Financial Transaction Tax, Consolidated Tape, Capital Markets Recovery Package and MiFID

Response to Capital markets – research on small and mid-sized companies and fixed income (updated rules in light of the COVID-19 pandemic)

11 Sept 2020

Nasdaq welcomes the Commission’s proposals as a step in the right direction. In the longer term, we hope further steps can be taken. Please find a few comments below. Research coverage of SMEs is sub-optimal. This has been the case since long and although the situation varies across markets, there is significant room for improvement everywhere. Our experience from the ecosystems around the markets that we operate, as well as observations from others, is that different models for providing research may be successful in different markets. Differences may depend on for instance the number and the sizes of listed SMEs, liquidity on the market as well as on the numbers, sizes and organisations of firms engaging in research in a certain ecosystem. The regulatory framework should allow for different models to exist and develop. The model of ‘sponsored research’, that has increased since bundling was prohibited by MiFID II, needs to be maintained in an unrestricted way, as is. The risks of conflicts of interests arising from this model, should be transparent. We believe transparency is the right way of addressing the conflict of interest. This way, the model of ‘sponsored research’ can keep developing and providing more research coverage of SMEs in the markets where this model appears as an attractive business case to the stakeholders involved. In parallel, we believe the unbundling rules in MiFID should be deleted fully and permanently. Similar to what is mentioned above in relation to sponsored research, potential conflicts of interests should be made transparent. The Commission’s proposals on allowing bundling under certain conditions are a step in the right direction. However, there is a risk that the proposal does not lead to as big changes as intended, as they may be perceived as too complicated. Not all research firms and buy-side may find it worthwhile to set up an additional account structure tailored for the specific exemption that the Commission has proposed, as it could impose extra administrative burden on to these entities. Given that existing research need to be complemented, we believe that fully authorising the bundling of SME research with other services is likely to further increase production and distribution of research reports and may have a significant effect on the liquidity of SMEs.
Read full response

Meeting with Karen Melchior (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

2 Jul 2020 · Digital Markets Act

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

18 May 2020 · Discuss Covid-19 situation, especially SMEs; Its impact on markets and companies

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

29 Apr 2020 · COVID-19 situation and Market data

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Deutsche Börse AG and

22 Oct 2019 · MIFID II

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

13 May 2019 · MiFID Implementation

Meeting with Nathalie De Basaldua Lemarchand (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

13 May 2019 · MiFID Implementation.

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

4 Apr 2019 · MIFID 2 implementation.

Meeting with Maria Asenius (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström)

4 Dec 2018 · Presentation of companies in light of the European SME awards / Explanation Commission's work

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

28 Nov 2018 · Closing remarks on Capital Markets Union at the Nordic Financial Ecosystem Forum

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

6 Nov 2018 · MiFID, Equivalence

Response to EU small listed companies Act

25 Jul 2018

Please see attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and AS LHV Pank

25 Jun 2018 · CMU, MIFID II, Indexing Challenges for Small Markets

Response to EU small listed companies Act

21 Jun 2018

Please see attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

16 May 2018 · MiFID II

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

22 Mar 2018 · Sustainable Finance, Fintech, Nasdaq in Baltic region, MiFID II

Meeting with Marlene Madsen (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

22 Mar 2018 · Sustainable finance, MiFID, FinTech

Meeting with Marlene Madsen (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

6 Feb 2018 · MiFID II and ESAs Review

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis), Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

1 Feb 2018 · Financial markets regulations, Capital Markets Union

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

23 Jan 2018

See attached document.
Read full response

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

23 Jan 2018

Please see attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker) and Investor AB

22 Nov 2017 · Speech on Capital Markets Union, ESAs review and Brexit at the Nasdaq EQT event

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

25 Sept 2017 · Brexit, Capital Markets Union and MiFID ll

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation amending the MiFID 2 Delegated Regulation with respect to systematic internaliser defint

17 Jul 2017

Nasdaq fully supports the spirit of MiFID II to promote transparency and to firmly distinguish between bilateral and multilateral trading activity, in order to protect the price formation process, ensure fair and orderly markets, and deliver a true level playing field between bilateral and multilateral trading. In consistency with the intent of the co-legislators, it is our understanding that under MiFID II, trading currently not taking place on a regulated market or MTF, including current Broker Crossing Networks, should be classified either as MTFs for multilateral trading, or as SIs for bilateral trading. For this to become reality, a clear distinction needs to be made between bilateral and multilateral trading activity. See the attached file for further comments on this. Nasdaq supports the proposed draft Commission Delegated Regulation, as the proposed Article 16a addresses both the ‘internal’ riskless trading (on a single SI) and the ‘external’ riskless trading (across multiple SIs), irrespective of whether such trading is pre-arranged via interconnected networks or more informal. At the same time, activities such as portfolio trades or swaps/CFD trades, will not be captured by the proposed changes. We believe the proposed Delegated Regulation will clarify the distinction between bilateral and multilateral trading, thereby ensuring that market developments in this space are aligned with the original intent and spirit of MiFID II. However, in this context we would like to draw the Commission’s attention to two problems that remain in respect of the SI regime: tick sizes and post-trade transparency. First, the ability of SIs to improve prices without respecting tick sizes means SIs will be allowed to offer marginally better prices to clients. In conjunction with best execution requirements, this means SIs are extremely likely to capture significant trading flows. Second, control over the timing of trade publication on SIs (up to 1 min) will give SIs a considerable advantage over market makers on public markets. If these loopholes are left unchecked, there is a risk of an unintended consequence of MiFID II in the form of a fundamental change of market structure away from public, transparent, and multilateral markets, to private, opaque, and bilateral liquidity pools. This is not what was intended with the MiFID II framework. Such developments in market dynamics would have the following impacts: • Price formation: trading would shift towards a less transparent environment as SIs are only transparent up to standard market size (€7500 for most equities). Further, price improvement on SIs means they retain the ability to trade at midpoint (just like under the reference price waiver) in sizes as low as €7500 without being affected by the double volume caps; • Market makers: because SIs can control the timing of post-trade transparency, SIs will have advantages over market makers on public markets. This incentivises market makers to become SIs instead of providing liquidity on public markets, with potentially significant detrimental effects on overall liquidity and market quality; • Fairness of markets and investor protection: SIs are private pools of liquidity in which market makers have the ability to choose who they are trading with and adapt their prices depending on the type of client. A shift of volumes to such an environment will reduce the overall fair and equal treatment of market participants and ultimately damage investor protection; • Overall higher levels of risk in the market: SI transactions in equities will likely not be subject to central clearing. We make two proposals in the attached file to address these risks via targeted technical changes at Level 2 and Level 3.
Read full response

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

12 May 2017 · SLs in MiFID II

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President)

8 May 2017 · CMU; MiFID 2; ESG reporting

Meeting with Tatyana Panova (Cabinet of Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis)

21 Mar 2017 · MiFiD, LSE/DB merger

Meeting with Aare Järvan (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

7 Dec 2016 · Digitalisation of Financial Markets including Blockchain

Meeting with Marlene Madsen (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

29 Nov 2016 · Capital Markets Union

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

19 Oct 2016 · Views exchange

Meeting with Pierre Moscovici (Commissioner) and

29 Jun 2016 · SME financing

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

21 Jan 2016 · Nasdaq's role in Europe, trends and recent developments in their markets, equity investment and capital markets union

Meeting with Aare Järvan (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

30 Jun 2015 · Economy Financing and Updates on Estonia Financial Markets

Meeting with Heidi Jern (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

6 May 2015 · Energy Union

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

19 Feb 2015 · Capital markets union

Meeting with Mette Toftdal Grolleman (Cabinet of Commissioner Jonathan Hill)

11 Feb 2015 · EMIR, CCP recognition, MiFID, Level 2, Nordic business issues