Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the overall profile of SEC‐registered investment advisers in the USA, to identify trends and influences on the profile of investment advisers, and to extrapolate to future expectations in the profile of SEC‐registered investment advisers.

The approach reviews the SEC registration filings by all investment advisers from a granular level to the overall impact and identifies trends and patterns from a similar analysis applied consistently over a six‐year period of similar annual analysis.

The paper reveals that the numbers of registered investment advisers continues to grow. Hedge fund advisers were required to register with the SEC until the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit entered a decision vacating that rule. Where that decision takes the investment advisory community will be reflected in statistics from future SEC filings by investment advisers. The data show an increasing globalization of the investment adviser business and continued growth opportunities for compliance professionals.

The paper is based on review of statistics of all SEC‐registered investment advisers filed with the SEC on forms ADV Part 1 for 2006. The study analyzed the statistics and drew conclusions relevant to compliance professionals in the investment adviser space.

To provide a summary and analysis of the Proposed Rulemaking published by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on September 1, 2015, which proposes to subject investment advisers to certain requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

The article discusses the proposed expansion of Bank Secrecy Act regulations to include investment advisers, including the history behind the rulemaking, proposed definition of “investment adviser” under the Act, the comments received in response to the proposed rulemaking, and the potential implications of the rule, should it be finalized.

This article concludes that FinCEN, in cooperation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other agencies, is nearing completion of the proposed rule. Investment advisers that fall under the proposed definition of those subject to Bank Secrecy Act should prepare to implement anti-money laundering compliance programs.

This article contains valuable information about proposed regulations impacting investment advisers registered or required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the wake of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) adoption of new rule 203(b)(3)‐2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), many investment advisers that provide advisory services to hedge funds, and that previously had benefited from an exemption from federal registration under the Advisers Act, now will find that they are no longer eligible for such exemption. They will have to become federally registered investment advisers. As a result, such advisers will find themselves subject to a variety of rules and regulations regarding various compliance matters. Significantly, for the first time these advisers also may be able to market their services

For the foreign investment adviser wishing to do business in the USA, the regulatory climate has never been more propitious. This paper describes the recently restructured framework of federal and state law and regulation applicable to non‐US advisers that provide investment advisory services to US clients, whether from abroad or through a US subsidiary or affiliate. For those advisers that will register either themselves or subsidiaries or affiliates as investment advisers in the US, the paper first describes the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), rules thereunder and significant interpretations and discusses the SEC's recent enforcement priorities. It then discusses the scope of and limitations imposed under recent interpretations permitting non‐US advisers that register in the USA to comply with US restrictions only in connection with their US clients. Finally, the paper discusses other legal and regulatory provisions that apply if the adviser offers interests in a pooled investment vehicle (ie an investment company) in the USA.

This paper aims to explain the rules recently adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the provisions of the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the increased asset threshold for federal registration as an investment adviser, the new exemptions from investment adviser registration (including the exclusion of “family offices” from the definition of an investment adviser), the enhanced reporting obligations imposed on registered and certain exempt advisers, and the definition of a “qualified client” for purposes of applying the performance fee rule under the Investment Advisers Act.

This paper summarizes the principal content of the Rules and explains their application to investment advisers, focusing in particular on analyzing the impact of the Rules on US and non‐US advisers to private funds.

The Rules clarify important aspects of the Dodd‐Frank amendments to the Investment Advisers Act and expand the scope of certain registration exemptions as they relate to foreign advisers. The Rules also expand significantly the family office exclusion from investment adviser status.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to explain certain SEC and state registration, disclosure, and recordkeeping requirements for US and non‐US investment advisers and fund managers as defined in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The paper explains SEC and US state registration requirements; the elimination of the “private adviser” exemption; the creation of new, narrower adviser registration exemptions; reporting and recordkeeping requirements relating to private funds; information and confidentiality provisions for private funds; the SEC's authority to make rules and regulations defining technical, trade, and other terms used in the amendments set forth in the Act; provisions of the “Volcker Rule” concerning banking entities' ownership interests in hedge funds and private equity funds; the adjustment of the “qualified client” test for inflation; the definition of an “accredited investor”; and disqualifications from using Regulation D.

The Act will require many US and non‐US investment advisers and fund managers to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, particularly those advisers that have previously relied on the “private adviser” exemption from SEC registration, which has been eliminated by the Act. The Act will also impose new disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on many investment advisers, including some who are not required to register with the SEC.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to to summarize Advisers Act registration implications for non‐US advisers that now rely on the “private adviser” exemption from Advisers Act registration and to summarize the principal changes affecting investors in funds managed by non‐US advisers contained in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The paper explains the elimination of the “private adviser” exemption and the creation of the narrower “foreign private adviser” and other exemptions from Adviser Act registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements relating to private funds; the Dodd‐Frank Act's provisions for information sharing by the SEC and the confidentiality of private fund information; the “Volcker Rule's” limitation of investment by banking entities and non‐bank financial companies in hedge funds and private equity funds; changes in the definition of “accredited investor”; and the future adjustment of the “qualified client” test for inflation.

The Dodd‐Frank Act will require many investment advisers and fund managers with their principal offices and places of business outside the USA to register with the SEC and to observe, with respect to US clients, the full spectrum of SEC regulations that apply to registered investment advisers. The Act will also impose new disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on many non‐US advisers.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This article takes a close look at the requirements of the 1940 Investment Advisors Act for both registered and unregistered investment advisors — such as hedge funds and private equity funds. It highlights the significant issues that arise from the regulation for unregistered funds that are considering the consequences of SEC registration. It also reviews briefly the requirements of the Act that are already applicable to unregistered investment advisors.

To discuss factors that a private fund advisor should consider in its decision to remain registered with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or to deregister in light of the D.C. Court of Appeals June 2006 decision in Goldstein v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Analyzes and compares the advantages and disadvantages of staying registered and deregistering; discusses the requirements of state registration for advisers that are note registered with the SEC; and analyzes the consequences to private fund advisors if the SEC does not repropose certain rule amendments adopted along with Rule 203(b)(3)‐2 concerning bookkeeping, performance fees, and custody.

Advisers should carefully consider their facts and circumstances and their business plans when analyzing the consequences of deregistration with the SEC – most importantly, the possibility of multiple state registration – before filing to deregister. Especially if the SEC restores the rule amendments the Goldstein decision struck down, staying with the SEC – the regulator you know – may be better than registering with a state.

Provides an up‐to‐date analysis of factors that private funds should consider concerning SEC registration in light of the recent Goldstein decision.

The purpose of this article is to explain the implications for registered fund advisors of the February 9, 2012 final amendments the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) made to its Rule 4.5 exemption from commodity pool operator (CPO) registration for registered funds.

This article explains how amended Rule 4.5 will be applied to advisors and sub‐advisors of registered investment companies and the managers of foreign corporations controlled by registered investment companies. The article also describes the expected impact of the CPO compliance regime under a proposed harmonization of CFTC CPO regulation with Securities and Exchange Commission regulation of registered fund advisers.

All registered fund advisers should conduct a review of each of their registered funds' portfolios, investment strategies and marketing materials to evaluate their status as CPOs by the compliance deadline. Advisers who cannot comply with the amended Rule 4.5 by the compliance deadline should prepare for CPO registration.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.