Investment Advisers Act

Subscribe to Investment Advisers Act via RSS

Amid a challenging environment for exits, especially in the wake of the recent market volatility, private fund managers continue to pursue alternative strategies, such as term extensions and liquidity solutions, to ride out the liquidity downturn. While these measures are designed to protect the value of the funds’ investments and are frequently requested by limited partners, they raise potential regulatory concerns that have been the subject of SEC scrutiny in the past. As noted by a senior staff member of the Division of Examinations in March, the SEC continues to conduct exams with a focus on the bread-and-butter issues like fees, conflicts and related disclosures. Therefore, as funds approach maturity, it is worth reviewing the areas that have received the greatest regulatory attention.

With Paul Atkins as the new SEC Chair, the agency’s priorities have shifted away from many of the aggressive policies of former Chair Gensler. The first four months of the Republican controlled SEC saw a dramatic shift in the approach to crypto with the dismissal or pause of major litigation, the termination of several longstanding investigations, the recission of accounting guidance regarding the safeguarding of crypto assets and the establishment of a new task force to help formulate the regulatory approach to crypto going forward. With the enforcement program under a new SEC undergoing significant changes, there will likely be a return to more traditional enforcement cases with greater emphasis on egregious conduct involving pecuniary gain or investor harm, moving away from “pushing the envelope” cases. Enforcement sweeps involving off-channel communications, late filings and other “broken windows” initiatives are expected to fall by the wayside. Regulation by enforcement could be replaced by increased interaction with the Staff, formal or informal guidance or lighter-touch rulemaking.

On June 14, 2024, the SEC announced an enforcement action settlement with a Pennsylvania-based hedge fund manager for violating the Marketing Rule under the Investment Advisers Act. The SEC found that the adviser had misled investors by advertising a hedge fund’s investment performance based on the investment performance of a…

The SEC’s recent settlement involving a “pay-to-play” rule violation by a private equity firm is a timely reminder for fund managers, especially with the November elections approaching. 

As a refresher, Rule 206(4)-5 of the Investment Advisers Act – known as the “pay to play” rule – prohibits investment advisers from receiving compensation for providing advisory services to state and municipal entities for two years after the adviser or one of its “covered associates” makes certain political contribution to candidates for public office. Note that the SEC Enforcement Division staff periodically reviews public campaign contribution reports (which are publicly available online) to identify donations by individuals associated with investment advisers.

As IPOs and other traditional paths to liquidity for private assets have become more challenging, GP-led secondary transactions have emerged as a powerful and popular tool across closed-end private funds, leading to explosive growth over the last five years. And while macro factors influence their prevalence year over year, these transactions remain broadly popular across the various stakeholders in these transactions, facilitating different goals for different parties: 

  • Existing Investors (LPs):  Near-term liquidity in a liquidity-constrained market, typically with an option to continue participation if desired
  • New Investors (Buyers):  Access to a mature portfolio with unrealized upside
  • Fund Adviser (GP):  Extended duration to capture future upside of well-performing assets, additional capital to support existing portfolio, and reset economics aligning with longer-term outlook

On March 15, 2023 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) released its proposal to amend Regulation S-P: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information and Safeguarding Customer Information, while simultaneously issuing two additional cybersecurity-related rule proposals[1] and re-opening the comment period for its previously-proposed cybersecurity risk management rule released in February 2022.[2] This set of sweeping reforms makes it clear, if not already, that the SEC is serious about implementing comprehensive cybersecurity and privacy standards across its regulated entity population—including investment advisers.   

Last month, we predicted that a renewed focus by the SEC on insider trading, MNPI and related internal controls would be one of the Top Ten Regulatory and Litigation Risks for Private Funds in 2022. Last week, the SEC’s Division of Examinations (“EXAMS”) issued a timely risk alert relating to Investment Adviser Material Non-Public Information (MNPI) Compliance Issues.

The SEC’s EXAMS risk alert specifically highlighted a handful of common deficiencies noted under Section 204A of the Advisers Act and Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act (the “Code of Ethics Rule”).

We anticipate a more assertive regulatory enforcement program under the Biden administration, particularly focused on fund managers’ conflicts of interest, advisers’ codes of ethics, and related policies and procedures relating to material nonpublic information.  These concerns may be heightened for fund managers participating in bankruptcy proceedings, where competing fiduciary obligations arise, particularly in the context of serving on creditors committees.  Outlined below are three primary concerns.

On October 7th, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the rescheduled date of its 2020 national compliance outreach seminar for investment companies and investment advisers.  This program is intended to help Chief Compliance Officers and other senior personnel at investment companies and investment advisory firms enhance their compliance programs.  The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), Division of Investment Management (IM), and the Asset Management Unit (AMU) of the Division of Enforcement jointly sponsor the compliance outreach program.  The national seminar will be held virtually on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19th, 2020 via a live webcast from the SEC’s Washington, D.C., headquarters from noon until 4:50 p.m. EST.

Asset managers commonly engage regulatory compliance consultants to aid them in addressing regulatory requirements and implementing compliance programs. The work of those compliance professionals can be drawn into SEC enforcement actions in various contexts.  See, e.g., ZPR Investment Mgmt. Inc. v. SEC (compliance consultant resigned when advice not followed and testified in proceeding). One such context is when a fund manager asserts reliance on advice of the compliance consultant as a defense to fraud charges. Earlier this year, a district court opinion addressed that very issue. Although the opinion received little attention, it could have major implications if its analysis is broadly adopted.