At an open meeting on June 22, the SEC voted to adopt rules
substantially as proposed earlier this year that:
implement provisions of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), by requiring
certain advisers to hedge funds and other private funds to register
with the SEC;
establish new exemptions from investment adviser registration
and reporting requirements for certain advisers; and
reallocate regulatory responsibility for advisers between the
SEC and the states.
The deadline for advisers to come into compliance with the
rules is March 30, 2012. By that date:
advisers with more than $100 million in assets under management
($150 million for advisers solely to private funds) must register
and comply with the obligations of a registered investment adviser;
mid-sized advisers generally must transition from SEC to state
registration, provided such advisers would be subject to state
registration and examination.
Mid-sized advisers that maintain their principal office in the
states of Minnesota and New York will remain subject to SEC
registration as those states do not subject advisers to
examination. Advisers that maintain their principal office in
Wyoming will also remain subject to SEC registration as Wyoming
does not regulate investment advisers.
Advisers solely to venture capital funds and private funds with
less than $150 million in assets under management in the United
States (Exempt Reporting Advisers) will be subject to certain
reporting requirements, which will require less than the full
panoply of information required of SEC registered advisers. The SEC
does not intend to conduct routine examinations of Exempt Reporting
Advisers, but will have the ability to do so if the circumstances
A venture capital fund as defined by the SEC may invest in a
"basket" of non-qualifying investments of up to 20% of
its committed capital; an adviser to such a venture capital fund
would still qualify for an exemption from registration.
The SEC reaffirmed the validity of the Unibanco line
of no-action letters; thus, a non-U.S. adviser affiliated with an
SEC registered adviser will not be required to register with the
SEC if it follows the guidance provided by the SEC staff in those
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On November 13, 2013, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations providing guidance regarding new rules allowing for general solicitation in private offerings.
On November 14, the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission created confusion and consternation in the derivatives world by issuing an advisory indicating that certain requirements will apply to swaps entered into between a registered non-U.S. swap dealer and a non-U.S. person if the swap is handled by personnel or agents of the non-U.S. swap dealer located in the United States.
On September 30, 2013, the US Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Trading and Markets issued Frequently Asked Questions in an effort to provide guidance regarding potential supervisory liability of broker-dealer compliance and legal personnel under Sections 15(b)(4) and 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On November 12, the liquidators for two Bear Stearns overseas hedge funds filed their complaint against McGraw Hill, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch in an action in New York Supreme Court alleging that fraudulent ratings led to over $1 billion in losses for the funds’ investors.
Last week the Second Circuit held that: (1) a creditor can face liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when a third party it hires to contact debtors does not make bona fide attempts to collect the debt but rather acts as a mere conduit between the creditor and debtor; and (2) the assignee of a debt is not a "creditor" for purposes of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
Recently, the Delaware Court of Chancery in Pfeiffer v. Leedle declined to dismiss a shareholder derivative action against a board for breach of fiduciary duty, where the directors allegedly approved stock options exceeding the maximum number of options permissible under the corporation’s stock incentive plan. C.A. No. 7831-VCP (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 2013).