Category:Global Regulatory Development

1
Europe: Systemically important outsourced service providers, eg cloud services, to be identified and regulated in the UK    
2
United States: Grayscale Appeals to DC Circuit on SEC Denial of Bitcoin ETP
3
Australia: ASIC Provides Practical Guidance as Long Awaited CCIV Arrives
4
United States: All Square: Amended CFTC “Block Trade” Definition Officially Effective
5
Europe: AIFMD II – Proposed Refinements to Loan Originating Fund Proposals
6
United States: MNPI (aka, “My Next Possible Investigation”): The SEC’s Scrutiny of MNPI Compliance Programs
7
Europe: FCA Consults on Permitting Side Pockets for UK Retail Funds Affected by Conflict in Ukraine
8
Europe: FCA Challenge to UK Fund Service Providers    
9
Australia: Finally, a new fund vehicle
10
United States: Being a SPAC is No Fun(d): SEC Proposes “Safe Harbor” Exclusion for SPACs

Europe: Systemically important outsourced service providers, eg cloud services, to be identified and regulated in the UK    

By: Kai Zhang

In an 8 June 2022 policy statement,  the UK Government proposes a specific regime for supervising “critical” service providers to the financial services industry. This is to address concentration risk as many regulated firms rely on a few large service providers whose failure could potentially threaten the stability of, or confidence in, the UK’s financial system.   The Government observes that in 2020 over 65% of UK regulated firms used the same four cloud providers for cloud infrastructure services.

Read More

United States: Grayscale Appeals to DC Circuit on SEC Denial of Bitcoin ETP

By: Stacy L. Fuller, Clifford C. Histed, Cheryl L. Isaac, Richard F. Kerr, Keri E. Riemer, and Peter J. Shea

On Thursday, Grayscale Investments, LLC (Grayscale) filed suit against the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to reconsider the agency’s rejection of listing a spot Bitcoin ETP on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). In its appeal, Grayscale argued that the SEC’s ruling regarding its spot Bitcoin ETP was “arbitrary and capricious,” because it disregarded facts about the ETP and erroneously determined that listing the ETP would be in contravention of NYSE’s duties under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Read More

Australia: ASIC Provides Practical Guidance as Long Awaited CCIV Arrives

By Kane Barnett and Bernard Sia

ASIC has published Information Sheet 272 (INFO 272) and Report 728 (REP 728) on the eve of the corporate collective investment vehicle’s (CCIV) commencement.

With the commencement date for CCIVs being 1 July 2022, today ASIC released 7 regulatory guides relating to the registration and licensing requirements for CCIVs. We outline the key features of CCIVs in our previous update. INFO 272 provides much needed clarity on how both the CCIV itself and its initial sub-funds are to be registered.

Read More

United States: All Square: Amended CFTC “Block Trade” Definition Officially Effective

By: Cheryl L. Isaac and Michael G. Lee

On 25 May 2022, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) block trade no-action relief, provided in CFTC No-Action Letter (NAL) 20-35, expired. As of that day, all swap execution facilities (SEFs) are required to comply with the amended definition of “block trade” provided under CFTC Regulation 43.2.

“Block trades” are large, privately negotiated (either directly or through a broker) swap transactions that meet certain quantity thresholds. Block trades must qualify for execution apart from the SEF’s order book or trading platform in accordance with the relevant SEF’s rules, pursuant to CFTC Regulations.

Read More

Europe: AIFMD II – Proposed Refinements to Loan Originating Fund Proposals

By: Philipp Riedl

On 18 May 2022, the Rapporteur submitted to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) a report suggesting changes to the EU Commission’s envisaged regulation of loan originating funds under its proposed AIFMD amendments (AIFMD II).  The report includes some proposed relief, notably:

Read More

United States: MNPI (aka, “My Next Possible Investigation”): The SEC’s Scrutiny of MNPI Compliance Programs

By: Keri E. Riemer

The SEC’s Division of Examinations recently released a risk alert describing a pattern of deficiencies relating to investment advisers’ use of material non-public information (MNPI). The Staff highlighted the following as areas of concern:

  • Alternative Data. Advisers that used data from non-traditional sources beyond company financial statements, filings, and press releases appeared to not have adopted or implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the potential risk of receiving and using MNPI through such sources.
  • “Value-Add Investors”. Advisers did not have—or did not appear to implement—adequate policies and procedures related to investors who are more likely to possess MNPI (e.g., officers or directors of a public company, asset management firm principals or portfolio managers, and investment bankers).
  • Expert Networks. Advisers did not appear to adequately track calls with expert network consultants, retain detailed notes from the calls, and monitor trading activity related to companies in industries similar to those discussed during the calls.
  • Deficiencies related to Access Persons. The Staff identified advisers who failed to correctly identify “access persons” (as defined in Rule 204A-1(c) under the Investment Advisers Act), ensure that those access persons obtain pre-approval for investments in IPOs and other similar offerings, and maintain adequate records of the holding and transactions of access persons.

The Staff also encouraged industry participants to review their practices, policies, and procedures regarding the topics addressed above. We recently issued a client alert which describes the risk alert in greater detail and provides takeaways for industry participants.

Europe: FCA Consults on Permitting Side Pockets for UK Retail Funds Affected by Conflict in Ukraine

By: Andrew Massey and Robert Lloyd

On 28 April 2022, the FCA published consultation paper 22/8 on proposals to protect investors in UK authorised funds by allowing authorised fund managers (AFMs) to create side pockets in the form of separate unit classes for funds affected by the conflict in Ukraine.

The proposals are novel for UK authorised funds in at least two respects. Firstly, they would allow side pockets to be created without requiring a shareholder extraordinary resolution or at least 60 days’ prior notice. Secondly, the AFM would be able to suspend dealings in the unit class formed to create the side pocket without having to suspend dealing in the entire fund.

Read More

Europe: FCA Challenge to UK Fund Service Providers    

By: Andrew Massey and Melissa Vance

Fund managers can expect changes to custodian and other fund service provider practices in response to regulator challenge, and should review their due diligence of service providers.

In a letter on 23 March 2022, the FCA instructed the Chief Executive and Boards of third-party custodians, depositories for authorised and non-authorised funds, and third-party administrators to review key risks identified by the FCA, including the following:

Read More

Australia: Finally, a new fund vehicle

By Kane Barnett

On 1 July 2022 Australia will finally get a new fund vehicle, the corporate collective investment vehicle (CCIV).

Historically, Australian funds have been established as unit trusts or, in the case of certain venture capital funds, limited partnerships. The CCIV is a corporate structure that is intended to be more internationally recognisable than the trust-based fund structure as it is similar to the equivalent structure in other key fund jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Cayman Islands, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Read More

United States: Being a SPAC is No Fun(d): SEC Proposes “Safe Harbor” Exclusion for SPACs

By: C. Todd Gibson

Last year, a number of lawsuits were filed against SPACs and their sponsors challenging (in part) their status under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) arguing that SPACs are essentially unregistered investment companies.   A brief filed by two professors supported this notion on the basis that SPACs typically hold government securities until a target company is acquired (and thus, such SPACs are investment companies required to be registered).  In an unusual move to provide SPAC market participants with some comfort on this issue, a number of law firms joined together refuting this position in a joint public statement outlining legal practioners’ historic view that SPACs are not investment companies.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.