Earlier this month, the Division of Corporate Finance (“CorpFin”) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission supplemented — for the second time — its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”) to address some of the questions raised by private fund managers (and others) regarding the “bad actor” disqualification provisions of Rule 506(d).

New Rule 506(d), which

One continual source of concern for registered investment advisers and other managers who actively trade in the public equity markets is compliance with Rule 105. Rule 105 is part of Regulation M, which is a longstanding set of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules governing the activities of — among others — underwriters, issuers and

On Dec. 4, 2013, the Division of Corporate Finance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission supplemented its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”)[1] to address some of the questions raised by private fund managers (and others) regarding the recently promulgated “bad actor” rules contained in new Rule 506(d).[2]

New Rule 506(d), which became effective on

On April 10, 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved joint final identity theft rules, codified as Regulation S-ID (“Identity Theft Red Flags”) by the SEC and as new subpart C (“Identity Theft Red Flags”) to Part 162 by the CFTC. Managers registered with the SEC or the

Registered investment advisers in the process of planning an annual compliance review will generally include a review of their best execution processes and their use of so-called “soft dollars.” Managers that trade in fixed-income securities may find it useful to review a no-action letter issued earlier this year by the Division of Trading and Markets

Traders selling, and then repurchasing, the same stock, bond, option or future, is a topic facing increasing regulatory scrutiny. For systematic hedge funds trading in the U.S. — some of whom are shelving out seven figure sums for internal technology or facing expensive inquiries due to accidental violations — it has proved an expensive development.

Under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s custody rule (Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-2(d)(2)), a registered investment adviser is deemed to have custody of client assets if the adviser or a so-called “related person” of the adviser — including parties under common control with the IA — directly or indirectly holds, or has any authority to

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management recently issued a Guidance Update regarding the Custody Rule (Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act). The Guidance Update states that the Division will not require a registered investment adviser to hold certain certificated “privately offered securities” with a qualified custodian, thereby resolving a Custody Rule