Search
Searching Content indexed under Fund Management/ REITs by Laura Richman ordered by Published Date Descending.
Links to Result pages
 
1  
 
Title
Country
Organisation
Author
Date
1
US Securities and Exchange Commission Amends Dollar Threshold Tests Under Qualified Client Standard, Requires Exclusion of Net Equity in Primary Residence
On February 15, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") adopted amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers of 1940, as amended (the "Advisers Act"), that included increases to the "assets under management" and "net worth" dollar thresholds used to determine whether an individual or company is a "qualified client" for purposes of enabling an investment adviser (including an investment adviser to Section 3(c)(1) funds) to charge performance-based compensation.
United States
6 Mar 2012
2
U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission Proposes Net Worth Standard For Accredited Investors
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) required that the definition of "accredited investor" in rules issued under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) exclude the value of a natural person’s primary residence for purposes of determining whether a natural person has a net worth in excess of $1 million.
United States
1 Feb 2011
3
Implications of the Dodd-Frank Act for Investment Advisers
The Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 (the "Registration Act"), contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), both expands and contracts the potential universe of types of investment advisers subject to registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Advisers Act").
United States
17 Sep 2010
4
Investment Funds´ Failure To Report Beneficial Ownership Of CSX Shares "Owned" Through Total Return Swaps Violated Section 13(d)
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in CSX Corporation v. The Children’s Investment Fund Management (UK) LLP, et al, (08 Civ. 2764 (LAK) June 11, 2008),1 a case involving the proxy fight between two investment fund families and CSX Corporation, that the funds had violated Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by failing to disclose beneficial ownership of CSX shares in which the funds had economic i
United States
27 Jun 2008
Links to Result pages
 
1