Search results

To provide an overview of a new, streamlined process from the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by which a commodity pool operator (CPO) may request expedited no-action relief for failure to register under Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act if such CPO has designated another, registered CPO to serve as the CPO of the commodity pool.

Explains the background to the CPO registration no-action relief related to CPO delegation and the streamlined process for requesting no-action relief, including the procedure for requesting relief and the applicable criteria that must be satisfied to utilize the streamlined process.

By providing an alternative, streamlined process for requesting no-action relief from CPO registration in the context of delegation arrangements in certain circumstances, the CFTC staff is attempting to facilitate obtaining such relief, particularly since relief may be sought on behalf of multiple commodity pools by means of a single request. However, the criteria that must be fulfilled in order to utilize the streamlined process are not necessarily applicable to all CPOs and in all scenarios. Thus, certain CPOs may need to request no-action relief outside of the new, streamlined process or consider alternative fund structures.

Practical guidance from experienced asset management lawyers.

To explain CFTC No-Action Letter 14-126, issued on October 15, 2014 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, which sets forth a number of conditions with which a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) that delegates its CPO responsibilities (“Delegating CPO”) to a registered CPO (“Designated CPO”) must comply in order to take advantage of no-action relief from the requirement to register as a CPO.

Explains the modified conditions provided by Letter 14-126, including clarification of the permissible activities in which a Delegating CPO seeking to take advantage of registration no-action relief may engage regarding investment management, solicitation, and management of pool property; lists other criteria carried over from Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014; provides analysis and discusses limitations of the relief provided by the CFTC No-Action letter.

The letter makes more liberal several of the conditions set forth in CFTC Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014, with which many Delegating CPOs could not comply.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

To review the M&A Brokers “no-action” letter issued in February 2014 by the staff of the USA Securities and Exchange Commission that clarifies the circumstances in which intermediaries (M&A brokers) may receive transaction-based compensation for services provided in connection with sales of private companies without having to register and be regulated by the SEC as broker-dealers under the USA Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Examines the new SEC staff interpretative guidance on activities of M&A brokers in light of USA federal securities laws and previous staff no-action letters that address the application of broker-dealer registration requirements to such intermediaries when they render services in connection with purchases and sales of privately-held companies. Summarizes the manner in which the SEC staff’s new position expands the types of private M&A transactions on which intermediaries may advise and broadens the scope of services they may provide without subjecting themselves to Exchange Act registration.

The M&A Brokers letter dispels much of the uncertainty existing under earlier SEC staff no-action letters about the scope of permissible activities in which unregistered intermediaries may engage in private M&A transactions. By broadening the scope of those activities under the federal statutory regime governing broker-dealers, the new staff guidance should facilitate the expansion of services provided by M&A brokers without registration and permit greater flexibility for M&A brokers and their clients to structure compensation arrangements. The paper cautions that, absent reform of more restrictive regulation under the securities laws of some states, the prospects for expanded involvement by unregistered intermediaries in private M&A transactions may not be fully realized.

Expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize and discuss the implications of three related U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) no-action letters dated October 26, 2017 that seek to address the provisions of MiFID II related to “inducements”.

Provides background information regarding MiFID II and summarizes each of the three SEC Staff no-action letters: the SIFMA letter, the ICI letter and the AMG letter.

The no-action letters provide market participants with increased clarity as to how certain aspects of their business activities, in particular the “bundling” or “unbundling” of payments for research and execution, can comply with potentially competing systems of regulations.

Practical guidance from experienced financial industry and investment management lawyers.

The alert endeavors to clarify the current state of play regarding the registration requirements for commodity pool operators (CPOs) and to discuss certain exemptions from registration and no‐action relief that may be applicable to sponsors of private funds.

The authors' approach is focused on the practical steps a fund sponsor may need to take to claim an exemption from the CPO registration requirements. The authors obtained the research from publicly available CFTC sources.

Although many private equity funds may be exempt from the CPO registration requirements, many of the CFTC's exemptions are not self‐executing and necessitate ongoing action by the fund sponsor.

Before entering into any swaps, a sponsor of a private fund should consider whether the swap transaction will impact any exemptive relief currently claimed by the sponsor and whether any further CFTC action is required as a result of such transaction.

The article should provide a roadmap of the possible exemptions from CPO registration for sponsors of private funds.

To explain a series of no-action letters recently released by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance that help to clarify the circumstances in which a company may exclude shareholder proposals involving proxy access bylaw provisions from the company’s proxy statement.

Explains the background of competing proxy access bylaw provisions adopted or proposed by companies and proposed by shareholders, the “directly conflicts” test explained in SEC Staff Legal Bulletin 14H, and the “substantially implemented” guidelines implied in a series of no-action letters in February and March 2016. Explains the status of shareholder proxy access proposals as of Spring 2016.

Taken together with an earlier series of no-action letters released in February 2016 and Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H, published in October 2015, companies considering the adoption of a proxy access bylaw provision now have a clearer understanding of when the Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance is likely to conclude that a company may appropriately exclude a proxy access shareholder proposal in favor of a proxy access provision adopted or proposed by a company.

To analyze the recent SEC no-action relief allowing a non-US investment company to invest as a feeder fund in a US registered open-end management investment company without complying with all of the conditions of Section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

This article discusses the various conditions that a non-US investment company investing as a foreign feeder in a US registered open-end management investment company must satisfy in order to avoid complying with certain provisions of Section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. In addition, the article analyzes certain potential tax and regulatory challenges facing firms seeking to rely on the relief.

This article concludes that the SEC no-action relief is an incremental step in reducing barriers to global distribution of US registered funds and may marginally increase the use of cross-border master-feeder arrangements as contemplated by the no-action letter. Nevertheless, this article cautions that significant impediments to global distribution of US registered funds remain, including tax withholding and non-US law issues.

This article contains valuable information about the regulatory impediments to global distribution of US registered funds, as well as learned assessments of the impact of recent developments in this space by experienced securities lawyers.

To explain regulatory developments and changes to compliance obligations for asset managers registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as commodity pool operators of registered investment companies.

Provides a general overview of new CFTC rules (Harmonization Rules) that afford relief to commodity pool operators of commodity pools that are registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940; describes the specific CFTC disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that remain applicable to commodity pool operators that are also subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation by virtue of operating commodity pools that are registered investment companies; discusses reliance on substituted compliance with applicable SEC requirements; outlines the method for claiming relief under the Harmonization Rules; provides guidance for CPOs of RICs that use controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

CPOs of RICs benefit from “substituted compliance” under the CFTC Harmonization Rules.

Explains to investment advisers that have registered as CPOs of RICs the disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping obligations that apply to them, how to take advantage of compliance with SEC requirements in lieu of CFTC requirements, and how to claim relief with respect to certain CFTC compliance obligations.

Practical explanation by experienced derivatives and securities lawyers.

Part I of this series appeared in the Summer 2002 issue of The Journal of Investment Compliance. It addressed the regulation of wrap fee programs under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) and the requirements of Rule 3a‐4 thereunder, which must be met so that a wrap fee program is not deemed to be an investment company. Part I also discussed certain issues arising under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), including how program sponsors and any third‐party portfolio managers generally are viewed as investment advisers and are subject to the Advisers Act. Part II discusses additional Advisers Act issues such as suitability, fees, and advertising. It also briefly reviews issues arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The information provided in Part II assumes that readers have some basic familiarity with Part I.

To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters.

Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates.

While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC.

Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.