Tag:Hedge Funds

1
Singapore: Updates to Tax Incentives for Single Family Offices
2
ICYMI: Integrity Council Launches Global Benchmark and Core Carbon Principles for Voluntary Carbon Markets
3
United States: SEC Charges 11 Firms with Record Retention Violations
4
United States: Tag, You (Maryland Closed-End Funds) Are It!
5
United States: New Conference, More Rulemaking?
6
United States: SEC Charges Two Broker-Dealers With Record Retention Violations
7
Australia: Why You Should (or Shouldn’t) Use a CCIV
8
APAC: Managed Accounts and Conflicts—Part 2: Managed Accounts vs. Commingled Funds
9
APAC: Managed Accounts and Conflicts – An Overview
10
Europe: Important Issues Still Open for Debate in EU’s AIFMD and UCITS Reviews

Singapore: Updates to Tax Incentives for Single Family Offices

By: Edward Bennett and Ke Jia Lim

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has recently introduced new guidelines for Single Family Offices (SFOs) applying for tax incentives under the Section 13O and Section 13U schemes. The changes aim to expand tax incentives for family offices to promote investment in environmental and social causes.

Read More

ICYMI: Integrity Council Launches Global Benchmark and Core Carbon Principles for Voluntary Carbon Markets

By: Cheryl Isaac and Christine Mikhael

In case you missed it: late last month, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (“ICVCM”) launched its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) and Program-level Assessment Framework (Framework). With the publication of these new standards (developed with the input of hundreds of stakeholders in the voluntary carbon markets), we now have a set of fundamental principles for high-quality credits that create a verifiable climate impact, and a framework for determining whether carbon credit programs are eligible to label themselves as being in compliance with the CCPs.

Read More

United States: SEC Charges 11 Firms with Record Retention Violations

By: Neil Smith , Hayley Trahan Liptak and Peter Shanley

For over twenty months, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has steadily announced settled orders against broker-dealers and investment advisers for failure to retain business-related communication.  On 8 August 2023, the SEC released another round of settled orders with 11 firms for violation of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4 for failing to retain off-channel business-related communication.  One dually registered broker-dealer and investment adviser was also charged with violating recordkeeping provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  The content of the orders, and the firms involved, show the SEC’s attention may be shifting from wide-spread violations at large institutions to more limited compliance failures at firms of differing sizes. The assessed penalties, although still considerable, are consistent with this shift.

Read More

United States: New Conference, More Rulemaking?

At the Conference On Emerging Trends In Asset Management sponsored by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and held 19 May 2023, Chair Gary Gensler, and Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, William Birdthistle, called for greater discourse with industry participants and highlighted the strengths of recent rulemaking activities of the SEC.

Mr. Birdthistle kicked off the conference by referring to funds and investment advisers as “critical agents” in the investment management industry and in advancing the SEC’s mission. He also acknowledged the need for the SEC and its staff to be open to different opinions. He did not, however, indicate how such different views have been—or would be—addressed in the rulemaking process or otherwise.

Read More

United States: SEC Charges Two Broker-Dealers With Record Retention Violations

By: Neil T. Smith, Hayley Trahan-Liptak, and Christopher F. Warner

In November 2022, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler stated that the SEC was only just getting started in its efforts to ensure firms were properly retaining business-related communication occurring over off-channel mediums. Two settled orders against two prominent broker-dealers released 11 May 2023 emphasize that point.

As with the SEC’s December 2021 and September 2022 settlements with major Wall Street firms, the 11 May 2023 settlements find violations of the record keeping requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4 based on the firms’ failures to retain off-channel business-related communication. In the orders, which closely track the September 2022 orders, the SEC emphasized that the broker-dealers engaged in “pervasive off-channel communication” that occurred at all firm levels. The SEC continued to identify discussions about clients, client meetings, investment strategy, and communication regarding market color, trends, and events as “concerning” the broker-dealers’ respective businesses.

The May 2023 and September 2022 orders diverge with the discussion of cooperation. The SEC emphasizes in the recent orders that it considered the broker-dealers’ self-reporting, immediate remedial action, and cooperation with the SEC’s ensuing investigation when assessing penalties. Ultimately, the SEC ordered penalties of US$15 million and US$7.5 million, a fraction of the US$50 to US$125 million penalty range assessed in most prior similar orders.

It is clear the SEC’s investigatory efforts into record retention are in full swing. In fact, since the Fall of 2022, a myriad of firms have publicly announced that they are under investigation by the SEC in connection with potential record retention issues. It is likely additional formal charges are on the horizon.

Australia: Why You Should (or Shouldn’t) Use a CCIV

By Kane Barnett

Australia’s new fund vehicle, the corporate collective investment vehicle (CCIV) came in to effect on 1 July 2022. Since then adoption has been meagre to say the least.

Read More

APAC: Managed Accounts and Conflicts—Part 2: Managed Accounts vs. Commingled Funds

By Scott Peterman

In our last post, we suggested that managed accounts of whatever structure have become more and more popular among institutional investors. Our list included advantages of managed accounts often seen in print or discussed among panel participants in seminars. We did not, however, itemize all of the incentives motivating many institutional investors to prefer managed accounts over commingled funds. We’ll do so now to introduce and illuminate the reasons why and how conflicts of interest are created when fund managers manage separate client accounts alongside commingled funds. And, hopefully, give you some takeaways when managing your own investment management business.

Read More

APAC: Managed Accounts and Conflicts – An Overview

By Scott Peterman

Over the last 20 years, managed accounts have become increasingly popular. A managed account is a portfolio of securities managed by a single manager on behalf of a single investor. These special arrangements are especially popular among institutional investor seeking:

  • More control over investment decisions (positive or negative control; veto rights);
  • Access to institutional quality investment managers;
  • Direct ownership of underlying assets;
  • Better fee terms;
  • Longer investment horizons; and
  • Other considerations, such as Sharia compliance, special portfolio “tilts” such as ESG.
Read More

Europe: Important Issues Still Open for Debate in EU’s AIFMD and UCITS Reviews

By Giovanni Campi

On 24 January 2023, the ECON Committee of the EU Parliament adopted its report on proposed amendments to the EU’s main fund rules, AIFMD and the UCITS Directive, ahead of trilogue negotiations with the EU Council and Commission set to begin in March.  When agreed, the revised Directives are expected to come into force in 2025 in light of the 24 months transposition period. Notable proposals include:

Read More

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