Search results

To discuss a September 22, 2015 Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposal for a set of broad and sweeping rules mandating that open-end mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) develop and implement formalized and written liquidity risk management programs (“LRMPs”).

Describes the purpose of an LRMP, the six “liquidity buckets,” the nine factors that must be considered in determining an instrument’s liquidity, the need to continuously monitor the liquidity of each position, the set of eight mandated factors used to assess a fund’s liquidity risk, the requirement for a fund to define a three-day liquid asset minimum, the role of the fund’s board of directors, a separate rule permitting “swing pricing” to adjust net asset value to take into account the costs of unexpected redemptions or cash infusions, disclosure requirements, and proposed compliance dates.

In proposing this new program, the SEC stated that its goal was to enhance effective liquidity risk management practices by funds and thereby reduce the risk that funds will be unable to meet redemptions under reasonably foreseeable stressed market conditions.

Expert guidance by experienced financial services lawyers.

To analyze and identify the key findings from the April 8, 2020, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) recently approved rule amendments (“Adopted Rules”) extended to business development companies (“BDCs”) and registered closed-end funds and an Exemptive Order providing regulatory flexibility to BDCs.

Discusses the key takeaways and implications from the Adopted Rules and Exemptive Order.

The Adopted Rules provide BDCs and registered closed-end funds some of the more efficient registration, reporting, offering, and communication requirements currently applicable to operating companies. The Exemptive Order provides BDCs additional flexibility with respect to (1) the issuance and sale of senior securities and (2) the participation in certain joint transactions.

Firms and their representatives should heed the trends in both the substantial restitution FINRA is ordering and the related enforcement issues in the cases FINRA has brought.

Expert analysis and guidance from experienced asset management lawyers.

This article provides an overview of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of a package of rulemakings and interpretations designed to enhance the quality and transparency of investors’ relationships with investment advisers and broker-dealers.

The article provides legal analysis for and historical context of the requirements of the SEC’s adopted rules, Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS in addition to the two separate interpretations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser.

The SEC’s adopted regulatory package does not adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers but instead promulgates legal requirements and mandated disclosures in order to conform to the SEC’s perceived expectations for reasonable investors.

Investment advisers and broker-dealers should consult with their legal counsel in assessing how and to what extent the new regulatory package is applicable to them.

This article provides practical guidance from lawyers who have extensive experience with the Investment Company Act, Investment Advisers Act, and the Securities Acts.

To explain a guidance update recently issued by the USA Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Investment Management that furthers the SEC’s goal of clear and concise, user-friendly disclosure by focusing on certain specified requirements of Form N-1A and the rules under the Securities Act of 1933.

Discusses five areas where the SEC staff had been providing significant numbers of comments related to mutual fund disclosure after the adoption of the amendments to Form N-1A in 2009 by summarizing the applicable instructions of Form N1-A and/or rule and the SEC staff’s observations with respect to such instruction or rule.

Funds should ensure that during their next annual update they review their prospectus disclosure in light of this guidance update and make necessary changes so that the disclosure is clear and concise and not overly technical.

A concise summary of the SEC’s guidance update from experienced investment management lawyers.

To discuss how product innovations in exchange‐traded funds (ETFs) have blurred the line between passive and active management, and to explore the legal ramifications of these developments.

Describes how ETFs operate and how the ETF marketplace has grown; discusses the use of broad‐based indexes for most ETFs until recently; describes newer ETFs that provide targeted exposure to narrow market segments; and discusses underlying indexes that are based on performance‐based characteristics rather than market segments, along with possible difficulties in making performance‐based criteria widely available to investors.

Historically the SEC has expressed skepticism over actively managed ETFs because of uncertainty as to whether they can provide the same portfolio transparency and arbitrage opportunity that traditional ETFs can. As “Rule Sets,” or criteria for including companies in performance indexes, become more involved and less objective, the challenge will be to ensure that sufficient arbitrage opportunities exist to ensure pricing efficiency. If that challenge can be met, it may serve as a model for a truly actively managed ETF.

Explains how the new generation of ETFs is coming closer to the line of active management and the legal issues that must be surmounted before truly actively managed ETFs are offered.

This paper sets out to assess the role of the chief compliance officer (“CCO”), how the CCO performs his/her duties, and how the CCO interacts with the fund's board three years after the adoption of Rule 38a‐1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Reviews the CCO's responsibilities under Rule 38a‐1, discusses how the CCO role has evolved since the rule was promulgated, and focuses on key issues such as oversight versus supervision, the annual review process, risk assessement, testing methodologies, and the annual report to the fund board on the adequacy and operation of the fund's compliance program.

Properly conducted compliance requires the support of a wide range of the advisory/administrative team with the CCO playing the role of conductor of the orchestra. More and more CCOs seek to distance themselves from approving the day‐to‐day actions of other employees, so they cannot be considered to have assumed supervisory responsibility for those employees. Although a fund is required to perform an annual review of the adequacy of its compliance programs and its Primary Service Providers' compliance programs, most CCOs have found the review process is ongoing and occurs continuously throughout the year. Now that these compliance programs have been in place for two years, more CCOs are devoting time and resources to identify high‐risk areas and to implement transactional, periodic, and forensic testing programs. The CCO annual report has taken many different shapes and sizes, but generally summarizes material changes to the fund's compliance policies and procedures that have already been reported to the board.

A current, practical assessment of the CCO role by expert lawyers who advise funds on their compliance programs.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the history, current use, and possible future of Rule 12b‐1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

This paper briefly reviews the history behind the original adoption of Rule 12b‐1, then discusses the ways in which 12b‐1 fees are used today, some of the issues surrounding the Rule, and finally, briefly explores where we might be heading in the future.

The paper finds that, first adopted in 1980 in an effort to prop up a then ailing industry, Rule 12b‐1 and Rule 12b‐1 fees have been a staple for many mutual funds for almost 30 years. Over this time, the ways in which 12b‐1 fees are used has evolved significantly such that some people now wonder whether the Rule continues to serve the purpose for which it was designed.

The paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of how mutual funds' use of Rule 12b‐1 has changed, what the underlying issues are, and the prospects for reexamination of the Rule.

To explain reporting requirements under Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) that must be followed by advisers and brokers who exercise investment discretion over accounts that hold exchange‐traded equity securities, and to describe reporting requirements under Section 16 of the Exchange Act on certain persons considered “insiders” of a company that has a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

Describes the required reporting of significant acquisition and ownership positions on Schedules 13G and 13D, including the obligations of exempt investors, passive investors, and firms and their control persons; describes the required reporting of equity positions in managed portfolios of more than $100 million on Form 13F; and describes the reporting obligations of “insiders” (directors, officers, and principal stockholders) under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, including the content of Form 3 – Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, Form 4 – Statement of Changes of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, and Form 5 – Annual Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities.

Firms and their control persons managing discretionary accounts that hold more than 5 percent of an SEC‐reporting company's equity securities or manage discretionary accounts with market values of $100 million or more; institutional investment managers who exercise investment discretion over accounts with a fair market value of at least $100 million, and corporate insiders have significant reporting obligations under the Exchange Act.

Provides a clear, detailed reference concerning Section 13 and Section 16 Reporting Requirements.