Search results

Hedge funds increasingly are becoming a focus of investors and U.S. regulatory agencies including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the U.S. Treasury Department, the National Association of Securities Dealers, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as enhanced regulatory attention is forcing the hedge fund industry for the first time since the near‐collapse of Long‐Term Capital Management, L.P. in late 1998 to examine itself more closely. In light of the dismal performance of U.S. stock market indices over the past several years, investors are turning to “absolute” return vehicles, such as hedge funds, that are able to generate current positive returns in a market that has returned consistently laggard results. Investors’ ability to invest in hedge funds has been further enhanced by the increase of hedge funds‐of‐funds registered under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Simultaneously, over the past 18 months, the SEC has become increasingly concerned with a multitude of industry occurrences including (i) the widening access of investors to hedge funds, (ii) the unregulated nature of hedge funds, potentially leading to fraud or conflicts of interest with their investors, and (iii) the impact of hedge funds on the markets, especially in relation to their use of short selling. As U.S. regulatory attention remains focused on the hedge fund industry and industry practice and the themes of potential new regulations become apparent, it has become a cautionary period for hedge fund sponsors and investment managers.

Seeks to introduce several of the important issues that must be resolved in connection with the structuring and formation of a customized hedge fund program

Explains why some institutional investors have sought alternative investment structures that provide for the establishment of dedicated, captive hedge fund programs and provides an introduction to several of the important issues that must be resolved in connection with such a program, including the choice of investment vehicle, Investment Company Act considerations, ERISA considerations, tax considerations, Investment Advisers Act issues, terms of the captive fund's governing document, investment guidelines, and performance‐monitoring processes.

At a time when hedge fund assets are growing exponentially, some institutional investors have turned to dedicated, captive hedge fund programs to ensure their access to talented hedge fund managers and secure a diversified investment approach.

Two attorneys who work with hedge funds provide important guidance on structuring and satisfying the regulatory requirements for dedicated, captive hedge fund programs.

This paper seeks to discuss regulatory clarifications provided by the SEC since the June 2006 DC Court of Appeals decision in Goldstein v. Securities and Exchange Commission disrupted the SEC's hedge fund registration framework and other recently promulgated investment adviser practices and procedures.

Describes recent legislative efforts to reexamine the hedge fund industry and the SEC's response letter on several important issues raised by the American Bar Association Subcommittee on Private Investment Entities; highlights the need for the SEC and/or legislatures to address numerous issues raised by the Goldstein decision.

The SEC's response letter to the ABA Subcommittee on Private Investment Entities provided clarification on recordkeeping requirements for performance information, performance‐based compensation, and deadlines for distributing audited financial statements of funds‐of‐funds to investors. Further actions to be taken by the SEC and/or legislatures are still uncertain on issues such as the applicability of the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, the investment adviser accreditation threshold for “accredited investors,” liberalization of the manner of offering restrictions, increasing financial tests for individuals qualified to invest in hedge funds, and the necessity for general solicitation restrictions.

A useful update on the continually changing regulatory environment for hedge funds by an attorney who specializes in investment fund regulation.

On September 29, 2003, the staff (“Staff”) of the Division of Investment Management of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a report to the SEC entitled the “Implications of the Growth of Hedge Funds” (the “Report”). The Report recommends amending Rule 203(b)(3)‐1 of the Advisers Act to require a hedge fund manager to “look through” each existing client and count each of the hedge fund’s underlying beneficial owners as a “client” of the hedge fund manager for the purpose of determining whether an investment adviser has 15 or more clients and therefore must register under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Such a registration requirement effectively would increase the minimum investment requirement for a hedge fund. The Report does not necessarily support the argument that subjecting hedge funds to periodic examinations by the SEC will help in early detection of fraud and prevention of resulting investor losses. Despite the Staff’s intentions to identify distinctions between customary hedge fund vehicles and other types of investment funds, no clear hedge fund definition or standard was provided in the Report. As a result, there is a danger that the scope of new hedge fund regulations will be too broad

This article describes the implementation of Joint Economic Development Districts between the City of Akron, Ohio and surrounding townships. We examine the capacity of the JEDD structure to make Akron’s boundaries more “elastic” without contentious annexation, explore its capacity to serve as a vehicle for cooperative regional economic development, and assess its utility as mechanism for generating the funds necessary to finance the infrastructure improvements required for economic development. Preliminary indications are that the JEDD mechanism will allow the benefits of economic development to accrue to Akron while it avoids costly and contentious annexations and will generate funds to support economic development, but it does not manifest a cooperative, regional approach to economic development.

The UK Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) was a major research and development programme funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the UK higher education funding councils. One part of its work was concerned with document delivery, and several projects had this topic either as an explicit focus or as a necessary component. Reviews these projects, assessing the contribution of each one to UK document delivery services in academic libraries.

The article traces the history of the ISO Interlibrary Loan Protocol, starting with the early implementation work in Canada and Europe to its current renaissance, driven by the commitment of an international group of implementors and easy access to Internet communications network.

Provides an introduction to EDDIS, a document delivery project of the UK Higher Education Funding Councils’ Electronic Libraries Programme. Describes EDDIS from the viewpoints of a project, a service and a business.

This paper presents an overview of past and present research projects associated with electronic document delivery. The paper briefly outlines the Follet Report and introduces the UK's Electronics Libraries Programme, including the recently funded Focused Investigation of Document Delivery (FIDDO) project at Loughborough University. Four research areas have been identified as follows: resource sharing projects; network communication projects; electronic scanning projects and electronic document delivery systems. Conclusions highlight the major impact that technological developments are currently having on this area, the need for librarians to reassess their role in the information chain, and the need for delivery systems capable of handling different formats and a wider coverage of material to satisfy requests.