The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) passed a sweeping set of rules for the $26 trillion private fund industry designed to increase transparency and competition but with provisions that address industry concerns about potential overreach.
The rules and amendments to the Investment Advisers Act, approved by the SEC in a 3-2 vote Wednesday, target certain practices in the private funds industry that “may impose significant risks and harms on investors and private funds,” according to an SEC fact sheet.
Those practices include conflicts of interest generated by the charging of certain fees and expenses (restricted activities rule), as well as preferential treatment offered to some fund investors—but not all—through the use of side letters (preferential treatment rule).
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec.
Trial Membership
First week free, then $499 for an annual Membership
Cancel anytime within the trial period.
Annual Membership best value
Subscribe now for $365
Our lowest price ($1 per day) for one year.
A lawsuit filed by industry groups alleging the Securities and Exchange Commission overstepped its authority when it passed new rules for private fund advisers is unlikely to stop their implementation, according to experts.
Even though compliance dates for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new private fund rules are a year to 18 months away, compliance teams should start analyzing the impact now, according to experts.
The Securities and Exchange Commission passed new amendments requiring advisers to hedge and private funds to disclose events that could indicate systemic risk or investor harm, a move the regulator said will improve transparency within $20 trillion of market activity.
The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments to its rule covering fund names to ensure the regulation is appropriate to address new investment drivers, namely environmental, social, and governance matters.
The actions of companies like Amazon and new legislation passed in California prove it’s no longer a question of if companies will be required to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions—it’s a question of when, experts told attendees at CW’s virtual ESG Summit.
Nearly three months from the effective date of its beneficial ownership reporting rule, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network released guidance for small businesses to determine whether they must comply and what information they might be required to provide.
