Articles Tagged with Investment Company Act Of 1940

Published on:

By

Most 3(c)(1) private equity and hedge funds are impacted; exempt venture capital funds are not impacted.

Effective August 16, 2021, the dollar thresholds specified in the definition of “qualified client” under Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”) will increase (i) from $2.1 million to $2.2 million (net worth test) and (ii) from $1 million to $1.1 million (assets under management (AUM) test).  Clients that enter into investment advisory agreements (and existing fund investors that make additional fund investments) in reliance on the net worth test prior to the effective date will be “grandfathered” in under the prior net worth threshold.  The increases are made pursuant to a five-year inflation adjustment required by section 205(e) of the Advisers Act (section 419 of the Dodd-Frank Act).  (The most recent prior change was effective August 15, 2016.)

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act, David Grim discussed his views about the past, present and future of the investment management industry.  He selected four topics which in his opinion best illustrate the adaptability which the authors gave the 1940 laws governing the asset management industry.

Those topics are: (1) the role of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), (2) the role of private fund advisers, (3) the role of disclosure and reporting in our regulatory framework, and (4) the role of the board in fund oversight.

He called disclosure one of the critical pieces of the 40 Acts, and noted that the amount of information available to investors about funds and advisers through publicly available forms, prospectuses and offering documents has increased exponentially since 1940.  Specifically regarding private funds, he noted that the vast number of newly registered advisers after the passage of Dodd-Frank have resulted in a new era of transparency that has been beneficial to both investors and private fund advisers, in addition to the SEC.  The public availability of aggregated information has shed light on persistent questions and some misconceptions about the private fund industry. Investors have also benefitted by being able to make more informed choices when investing.

The full remarks are available here.

Published on:

By

In a February 2015 Guidance Update, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management (“SEC”), provided guidance on the acceptance of gifts or entertainment by fund advisory personnel under Section 17(e)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”). Section 17(e)(1) provides that any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such person acting as agent, is prohibited from receiving any compensation, outside of regular salary or wages, for the purchase or sale of any property to or for the registered company or any controlled company thereof. The SEC has found that gifts or entertainment meet the definition of “compensation” as it is used in Section 17(e)(1), and proof of any intended or actual influence is not required. Pursuant to Rule 38a-1 of the Act, a fund must implement written policies and procedure designed to prevent the fund and its service providers from violating securities laws. The Guidance Update suggests that the policies and procedures concerning the receipt of gifts or entertainment should be included in the fund’s compliance policies and procedures, though it defers to the fund to determine whether there should be an outright ban, or a type of pre-clearance to determine if the gift or entertainment would violate Section 17(e)(1).