Investment Advisers

Subscribe to Investment Advisers via RSS

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.

Over the past year, regulatory scrutiny of the credit markets has intensified, with the SEC investigating the potential use of material nonpublic information (“MNPI”) relating to credit instruments. The SEC brought a number of enforcement actions against investment advisers involving the failure to maintain and enforce written MNPI policies involving trading in distressed debt and collateralized loan obligations, even in the absence of insider trading claims. We anticipate that these investigations of trading in private credit instruments and related MNPI policies will continue, as SEC enforcement staff has increased their focus on these markets. 

With ESG regulation now well embedded across all major jurisdictions, the trend we see for 2025 is about increasingly sophisticated triangulation by private fund managers between the regimes that apply by default (such as mandatory corporate sustainability reporting), those that apply by choice (such as becoming an Article 8 fund within the meaning of the EU’s SFDR or the new for 2024 ESMA ESG Fund Name Guidelines – see summary here) and those that apply by third party request or expectation (such as reporting obligations within side letters). As regimes evolve, the ESG-approach of any fund once identified, chosen and defined must also take into account tracking developments and monitoring compliance.

As reported today, Vice President Harris has announced Tim Walz, the sitting governor of Minnesota, as her running mate. This announcement is particularly significant for investment advisers due to the Advisers Act Political Contributions Rule, otherwise known as the “pay-to-play” rule.

ESG continues to be a hot topic for 2024 for investors and regulators alike. The specific concerns investors and regulators have – and what they expect to develop over the coming months – differ, however, across jurisdictions, including because of the different maturity of existing regulation between the EU/UK and the US.

On November 4, 2022, compliance with amended Rule 206(4)-1 (the “Marketing Rule”) became mandatory for all investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).[1] Seven months since the compliance date, SEC-registered investment advisers continue to discover and adapt to challenges in applying the Marketing Rule. Newly formed advisers also face significant obstacles to marketing with a predecessor-firm track record. It has also impacted advisers’ interaction with placement agents and solicitors. And finally, the SEC has begun assessing advisers’ adherence to the rule through routine compliance examinations. All parties involved continue to adapt to the new environment.

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.   

A cyber breach can have serious legal, financial, and reputational consequences for a fund sponsor, as described in our previous post. As such, cybersecurity threats must be treated as business risks, not just a potential IT problem. Senior management at fund sponsors should take the lead to ensure that the sponsor is taking appropriate actions to protect itself against cyber risks. There are several steps that senior management can guide the fund sponsor to take to prevent breaches from occurring and to mitigate the impact when they do occur.

On June 23rd, the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued a new risk alert entitled “Observations from Examinations of Investment Advisers Managing Private Funds.” As discussed in the client alert below, the report highlights many practices which have been the subject…