The United States is the world’s largest and most predominant jurisdiction for the formation of alternative funds and boasts the largest number of alternative asset managers in the world. In recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, investment advisers have reported more than USD25 trillion in private fund gross asset value, amongst tens of thousands of funds.
Under the US federal securities laws, US investment advisers are governed by a robust regulatory framework, although certain exemptions may apply. In addition, the US federal securities laws cover many aspects of fund formation and the offerings of fund interests. Other US federal and state rules may apply depending on a number of factors, including the nature of the fund’s investment activities and/or the advisory activities of an investment adviser.
The regulatory landscape for private funds continues to grow more complex, with new rules and regulations adopted and proposed by the SEC and other regulatory authorities. Significant new rules include those relating to beneficial ownership reporting, the protection of customer information and advertisements and marketing communications, and proposed rules include those addressing conflicts of interest in predictive data analytics, the safeguarding of customer assets, outsourcing and cybersecurity risk management.
Alternative funds are formed to accommodate a variety of investment strategies. Generally, structures will be tailored to meet the business and legal needs of both the investment adviser and its investors. The strategies of “closed-end” private funds will typically be structured to target investments in one or more segments of a company’s capital stack, such as:
Open-ended funds will generally permit investors to invest or redeem their fund securities periodically, often subject to restrictions such as redemption gates or lock-ups. Open-ended funds will typically pursue a more liquid portfolio, although these structures can also be designed to accommodate illiquid investments.
Both closed- and open-ended alternative funds formed in the USA will typically involve several key entities, including:
Alternative funds and investment advisers are subject to a variety of regulations under US federal and state laws. The below outlines the basic US federal regulatory regime for alternative funds; depending on the facts and circumstances, other rules may apply.
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”)
Alternative funds are subject to the US rules concerning private placements when interests are offered to US persons, or US jurisdictional means are otherwise used in connection with an offering. Offers and sales of securities in the United States generally may only be made pursuant to a registration statement filed with, and declared effective by, the SEC, or in accordance with an exemption from these registration requirements. Alternative funds typically rely on the registration exemption provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the “safe harbour” provided by Rule 506 under Regulation D under the Securities Act (“Regulation D”). Section 4(a)(2) is a private placement exemption available to issuers for sales of their securities “not involving any public offering.” Section 4(a)(2) does not expressly provide details of what constitutes a valid private placement, so most alternative funds rely on the safe harbour provisions set forth in Regulation D. Rule 506(b) of Regulation D generally requires:
Rule 506(c) is a separate safe harbour that has no restrictions on the use of general advertising or general solicitation, but all investors must be “verified” as accredited investors. The overwhelming majority of alternative funds rely on Rule 506(b).
Offerings by US domiciled funds to non-US investors will generally be made in accordance with Regulation D. Offerings by non-US domiciled funds to non-US investors will generally be made in accordance with Regulation S under the Securities Act, which provides that registration under the Securities Act is not required when the offer and sale of a security occurs outside the United States in an offshore transaction and there are no directed selling efforts in the United States with respect to such sale.
U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”)
The Investment Company Act regulates “investment companies”, which are broadly defined as companies that engage primarily in “investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities”. To avoid being subject to the onerous requirements of operating as a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act, many alternative funds are structured to rely on certain exclusions from the definition of investment company. Most common are Section 3(c)(7) and Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act.
U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”)
See 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers.
U.S. Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)
The CEA generally governs the futures and derivatives markets. In the United States, securities and futures are subject to separate regulatory regimes. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and U.S. National Futures Association (NFA) serve as the derivative industry’s regulatory and self-regulatory authorities. If a fund will trade any amount of exchange-traded futures contracts, options on futures contracts or swaps (collectively, “commodity interests”) as part of its investment strategy, for all practical purposes, the fund will fall within the definition of a “commodity pool”. The operator (ie, sponsor or general partner) of a commodity pool must register with the CFTC as a commodity pool operator (CPO) and must become a member of the NFA unless it can avail itself of an exemption. The investment manager to a commodity pool generally must register with the CFTC as a commodity trading adviser (CTA) and become an NFA member unless it can avail itself of an exemption. These registration requirements are generally subject to narrowly drawn exceptions or exclusions. See 2.3 Disclosure/Reporting Requirements and 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers for further information regarding CFTC registration.
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The Exchange Act generally governs the issuers of registered securities and regulates broker-dealers. In general, under the Exchange Act, all sales of interests in a fund must either be made by the “issuer” (ie, the fund) or a registered broker-dealer. If there will be no independent selling agents and the fund will be making all sales, the broker-dealer registration requirement generally is not implicated, unless the issuer hires or otherwise employs marketing personnel whose compensation is tied to the sales made by them. See 4.5 Compensation and Placement Agents.
ERISA
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) Plan Asset Regulation, when “Benefit Plan Investors” acquire 25% or more of the equity interests in a fund, the Benefit Plan Investors are deemed to have an interest in the underlying assets of that investment, unless the investment meets one of the exceptions. These funds are typically referred to as “plan asset funds”. Individuals responsible for the investment and management of plan asset funds are subject to ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility provisions and certain prohibited transaction provisions under both ERISA and the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). If these obligations are breached, the fund’s sponsor and/or investment adviser can incur substantial liabilities and penalties. A Benefit Plan Investor is an (i) employee benefit plan subject to title I of ERISA; (ii) individual retirement accounts, Keogh Plans and other employee benefit plans that are not subject to ERISA but are subject to the prohibited transaction rules of Code §4975; and (iii) other entities the assets of which are deemed to be plan assets based on investment from entities listed in (i) and/or (ii) above.
State Regulation
Alternative funds and investment advisers will be required to comply with state securities laws (so-called blue sky laws) and related regulations, the application of which may (in part) be preempted by certain of the federal securities laws mentioned above.
An investment adviser or management company that falls within the definition of “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act must register with the SEC, unless it (i) is prohibited from registering under the Advisers Act because it has less than USD25 million of regulatory assets under management and is regulated by state law or (ii) qualifies for an exception from the Advisers Act’s registration requirement (see 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers). A sponsor that registers with the SEC as an investment adviser will be required to, among other things:
CPOs and CTAs have specific filing and reporting requirements under the CEA, the CFTC’s rules and the rules of the NFA.
Managers registered as CPOs must generally:
Managers registered as CTAs must generally:
No Entity-Level Income Tax on Flow-Through Funds
Typically, US-based funds are established as pass-through entities, such as partnerships or limited liability companies. Generally, a pass-through entity does not pay any entity-level income tax; instead, the beneficial owners of such pass-through entity report their share of the pass-through entity’s income, which itself is reported by the pass-through entity to its beneficial owners on an Internal Revenue Service Schedule K-1 (and to the extent the fund has foreign income, on an Internal Revenue Service Schedule K-3), and pay applicable federal income taxes at rates specific to such beneficial owners. However, in certain circumstances, a fund could be deemed to be a “publicly traded partnership”, subjecting it to federal income tax at the corporate income tax rate unless the fund satisfies an annual 90% “annual income” test.
Corporate Income Tax
In the unusual circumstance where a US fund is established as a corporation, such fund is subject to US federal income tax (currently 21%) and may be subject to state income tax. Additionally, some funds may elect to use a structure involving a below-the-fund or above-the-fund “blocker corporation” that would pay US federal income tax but may help tax-exempt and non-US investors avoid incurring unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) or effectively connected income (ECI), respectively (see 4.6 Tax Regime for Investors).
Permissible, Subject to State Lending Laws
Alternative funds are permitted to originate loans, but a state-by-state analysis should be considered to evaluate licensing risk.
State Licensing Laws
Certain states regulate both commercial and consumer lending. Because licensing requirements vary from state to state, alternative funds must consider their licensing risk on a state-by-state basis. Although there is no one-size-fits-all analysis, some relevant factors that are typically considered to determine whether licensing is required include:
If licensing is required, a state regulator will generally require the fund to meet certain financial conditions and to submit a licensing application that includes the disclosure of certain minimum information. Although state requirements vary, licensing applications may require disclosure of information regarding the fund’s business plan, financial information, and the fund’s owners, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates.
State Usury Laws
States generally impose statutory limitations regarding the permissible amount of interest that a lender may charge on a loan. State statutes vary, but the type/purpose of the loan and the amount of the loan generally are two key factors considered in this analysis.
Tax Considerations
A fund that originates loans may be treated as being engaged in a US trade or business for US federal income tax purposes. In that case, non-US investors would be deemed to be engaged in a US trade or business as well, and would have to file US income and possibly state income tax returns and pay US federal and state tax.
There are no special limitations regarding the types of assets in which a fund may invest, although special US federal and/or state rules may apply, depending on the nature of the fund’s assets. For example:
Alternative fund structures can be utilised to accommodate the tax, regulatory and other legal needs of the investment adviser and the fund and its investors. For example, non-US investors who seek to avoid certain US tax filing obligations or other adverse tax consequences may invest in a fund via feeder funds that are treated as corporations for US federal income tax purposes or by investing directly or indirectly in parallel funds or alternative investment funds that utilise blocker corporations. See 2.4 Tax Regime and 4.6 Tax Regime for Investors.
Generally, US states (including Delaware) do not require managers to have a local presence (or appoint local directors) to form an entity. Delaware, for example, only requires the entity to maintain a registered agent and registered office in Delaware (amongst other limited requirements). Depending on the scope of their intra-state activities (eg, opening an office, hiring employees, etc), entities may be required to register to do business in one or more US states.
Broad Discretion to Appoint Service Providers
Under relevant federal law, alternative funds and their managers have discretion to appoint service providers.
Custodians – SEC Custody Rule
Under the Advisers Act, where a SEC-registered investment adviser (RIA) is deemed to have “custody” of a fund’s assets, the adviser becomes subject to Rule 206(4)-2 of the Advisers Act, more commonly known as the custody rule (the “Custody Rule”), which, among other things, requires the adviser to place the fund’s securities with custodians who meet the definition of “qualified custodian” unless it delivers audited annual financial statements of the fund to its investors.
On 26 October 2022, the SEC proposed Rule 206(4)-11 under the Advisers Act that would prohibit RIAs from outsourcing certain “covered functions” without meeting the requirements set forth in the rule. If adopted, the proposed rule would introduce four main requirements for RIAs: due diligence and monitoring; books and records; oversight of service providers serving as recordkeepers; and changes to Form ADV.
On 15 February 2023, the SEC issued a proposed rule that would replace the Custody Rule with Rule 223-1 regarding the safeguarding of client assets (the “Safeguarding Rule”). Beyond a change in nomenclature, the proposed Safeguarding Rule would greatly expand the scope of RIAs’ responsibilities and duties to their clients, including private funds. Like the Custody Rule, the proposed Safeguarding Rule would not apply to exempt reporting advisers.
US alternative funds are predominantly established by US promoters and sponsors. Non-US advisers may also establish US funds for various purposes. In order to avoid integration of their US investment advisory activities with their global business operations, some non-US investment advisers may form separate US-affiliated investment advisers.
See Section 3.4 Tax Regime for Managers.
Registration Under the Advisers Act
Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines an “investment adviser” to mean: “any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others… as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities.”
An adviser that falls within the definition of “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act may have to register under the Advisers Act and be subject to its substantive requirements, unless an exemption applies (with respect to the registration requirements for investment advisers under the Advisers Act, see 2.3 Disclosure/Reporting Requirements).
Exemptions from Registration under the Advisers Act. The exemptions from registration as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act are as follows:
Fiduciary Duties and Anti-fraud Protections
An investment adviser (whether registered or unregistered) is a fiduciary with respect to all its clients. Advisers owe duties of loyalty and good faith to clients, and must act in accordance with those duties, including by providing full and fair disclosure of all material facts to current and prospective investors, and an affirmative duty to use reasonable care to avoid misleading clients.
Section 206 of the Advisers Act contains broad “anti-fraud” provisions that make it unlawful for an investment adviser to directly or indirectly engage in the following:
Commodity Exchange Act
Registration requirements
As discussed above, if a fund invests in any amount of Commodity Interests, directly or indirectly, the fund will fall within the definition of a “commodity pool”. The operator (ie, sponsor or general partner) and the investment manager of a commodity pool must be registered with the CFTC as a CPO and must become a member of the NFA unless it can avail itself of an exemption.
Many managers that only invest in Commodity Interests on a limited basis rely on an exemption from registration as a CPO found in CFTC Regulation 4.13(a)(3). Rule 4.13(a)(3) provides an exemption for managers that operate pools that restrict participation to accredited investors, certain family trusts formed by accredited investors and “knowledgeable employees” and either (i) the aggregate net notional value of the fund’s commodity interest positions does not exceed 100% of the liquidation value of its portfolio, or (ii) the aggregate initial futures margin and options premium needed to establish the fund’s commodity interest positions does not exceed 5% of the liquidation value of its portfolio. The investment manager to a fund satisfying these requirements does not have to register as a CTA.
CFTC Rule 4.14(a)(10), together with Section 4m(l) of the CEA, exempts any person from the requirement to register as a CTA, provided that such person has not during the prior 12 months furnished commodity trading advice to more than 15 persons and such person does not hold itself out generally to the public as a CTA. The CFTC rules that an adviser with its principal place of business outside the USA need only count US-based clients for purposes of such 15-client limitation. In order to rely on the “de minimis” exemption, no regulatory filing or approval is necessary.
CFTC regulations require all commodity pools sponsored by registered CPOs to have a “disclosure document” (ie, a private placement memorandum) that contains certain disclosures prescribed by regulation and which must be reviewed by the NFA, unless an exemption from such requirement is available.
If a CPO limits the investors in a fund solely to “qualified eligible persons” (QEPs) as defined in CFTC Rule 4.7, the CPO is exempt from the requirement that its pool have a disclosure document reviewed by the NFA, nor must any voluntary disclosure document contain required CFTC disclosures other than a required disclaimer (although the document must contain all relevant information and disclosures so as not to make the document materially misleading).
Generally, QEPs are accredited investors that meet a portfolio requirement (either USD2 million in securities or USD200,000 in futures margin or options on futures premium, or some proportional combination of the foregoing (although not effective at the time of this publication, the CFTC increased these amounts to USD4 million and USD400,000, respectively)). Qualified purchasers, “knowledgeable employees”, certain regulated entities or investment professionals, as well as non-US investors generally, are also deemed to be QEPs.
US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act provides that it is unlawful for any broker or dealer to make use of any means of interstate commerce in the United States to effect any transactions in, or induce the purchase or sale of, any security, unless it is registered with the SEC or an exemption from registration is available. Generally, a broker is a person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others for a commission, and a dealer is a person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for such person’s own account through a broker or otherwise. For the most part, an issuer of securities (such as a fund) should not be deemed to be a dealer since it is not both buying and selling its securities. Furthermore, an issuer (such as a fund) should not be considered a broker because the securities it is selling are not being sold for the “account of others”; rather, they are being sold by the issuer for its own account.
Unlike an issuer, an issuer’s employee or its general partner’s employees may be deemed to be selling securities for the account of others for a commission. See 4.5. Compensation and Placement Agents.
Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act provides for liability for any material misstatement or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of a security involving the use of US jurisdictional means.
Tax Considerations for US Managers
Fund managers are generally formed as limited partnerships or LLCs and are pass-through entities for US federal income tax purposes. As such, these entities are not subject to entity-level federal income taxes but are subject to the special carried interest rules discussed under 3.6 Taxation of Carried Interest. If a US manager is formed as a limited partnership, a separate entity is generally formed to act as the general partner of such limited partnership. Additionally, US fund managers often utilise two entities: a “management company” to receive the management fee, and the general partner of the fund to receive the carry. This has several benefits for US managers, including providing flexibility as to who participates in the economics of each entity as well as minimising state tax consequences to the principals. The management company itself is typically set up either as a single limited partnership or LLC, a single S corporation, or with a two-tier structure (with an LLC on top of a limited partnership). Various tax considerations (including US self-employment tax considerations) affect which structure should be used by any given fund.
Tax Considerations for Non-US Managers
Whether a non-US manager will be subject to US federal income tax will depend on whether the manager is engaged in a trade or business in the United States. Whether a manager is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is heavily dependent on the applicable facts and circumstances, but two important factors in such determination are whether the activities conducted in the United States are essential and directly related to the production of income, and whether the manager has a physical presence, such as an office or employees, in the United States. A non-US fund manager may find it beneficial to form a US subsidiary that is taxed as a corporation for US federal income tax purposes to conduct managerial activities in the United States, rather than exposing the non-US fund manager itself to any US federal income tax liability or reporting obligations.
If a fund has a US-based general partner or investment manager, such general partner or investment manager’s US presence should generally not cause a non-US fund or a non-US investor in a fund to be subject to US federal income tax as long as the activities of the fund consist predominately of passively investing in securities.
However, if a fund acts as a dealer in securities, the fund will be deemed to generate ECI for its non-US investors and UBTI for its US tax-exempt investors if such dealing activities occur in the United States. Additionally, activities, such as loan origination and investing in real estate and certain so-called “US real property holding corporations” can also be expected to generate ECI and UBTI for non-US investors.
Carried interest is a tax-efficient way to compensate principals of the general partner of the fund. Carried interest reflects a right to future undetermined profits of the fund above a certain performance threshold, and accordingly is not taxable upon grant by the general partner of the fund. Furthermore, carried interest allocations are not taxed as compensation. Instead, the character (as ordinary income, short-term capital gain or long-term capital gain) of amounts allocated with respect to carried interest is the same as it was when recognised by the partnership, except that long-term capital gain recognised by a partnership on the sale of an asset held for not more than three years is treated as short-term capital gain (which, as at the time of publication, is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income) when allocated to a non-corporate holder of carried interest. In addition, capital gain recognised by a carried-interest holder on the sale of its carried interest is treated as short-term capital gain, rather than long-term capital gain if the carried interest was not held for more than three years prior to being sold.
Managers are permitted to outsource a substantial portion of their investment functions or business operations. Managers remain responsible for ensuring effective compliance with their regulatory obligations, even with respect to outsourced services. See 2.9 Rules Concerning Service Providers.
See 2.8 Local/Presence Requirements for Funds.
RIAs, CPOs and CTAs managing alternative funds are not subject to any regulatory capital requirements or other local substance requirements under applicable federal law and related SEC, CFTC and/or NFA rules (as applicable).
Section 205(a)(2) of the Advisers Act generally makes it unlawful for an RIA to enter into or perform any investment advisory contract unless the contract provides that no assignment of the contract shall be made by the adviser without client consent. For these purposes, an assignment includes any direct or indirect transfer or hypothecation (ie, pledging) of an advisory contract and any direct or indirect change in control of an RIA.
In July 2023, the SEC proposed new rules that would require RIAs to, among other things, eliminate/neutralise conflicts of interest that result in placing the firm’s interests ahead of investors’ interests when using “covered technology” (eg, algorithms and artificial intelligence) in investor interactions.
See 3.10. AI and Use of Data regarding proposed new SEC rules to address conflicts of interest associated with the use of predictive data analytics by investment advisers.
Investment advisers generally structure their funds in a manner to accommodate various categories of investors. Common categories of investors include US government plans, corporate benefit plans, financial institutions, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, university and charitable endowments and high net worth individuals. Investments in funds are often structured to accommodate the tax and other legal and regulatory needs of certain investors.
There are currently no express restrictions under the US federal securities laws that would restrict the use of side letters. Under the SEC’s recently vacated Preferential Treatment Rule (under the Private Fund Adviser Rules defined below), private fund advisers would have been prohibited from providing certain preferential terms to investors regarding redemption rights and portfolio transparency preferences, where the adviser reasonably expects such preference could have a material negative effect on other investors in the private fund. However, in June 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the Private Fund Adviser Rules and the SEC did not appeal the ruling.
See 2.2 Regulatory Regime for Funds and 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers for descriptions of the applicable investor qualification standards under the Securities Act, Investment Company Act, Advisers Act and CEA.
No General Advertising or Solicitation
As highlighted in 2.3 Regulatory Regime for Funds and 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers, alternative funds typically offer interests to US investors in Rule 506(b) offerings and thus may not engage in general solicitation or general advertising in connection with the offering.
“Bad actor” Disqualification
The SEC has adopted certain “bad actor” disqualification provisions for Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act. As a result of the Rule 506(d) bad actor disqualification, an offering of securities is disqualified from relying on Rule 506(b) and 506(c) of Regulation D if the issuer or any other person covered by Rule 506(d) has a relevant criminal conviction, regulatory or court order or other “disqualifying event”.
The final rule provides an exception from disqualification when the issuer is able to demonstrate that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering. The steps an issuer should take to exercise reasonable care will vary depending on particular facts and circumstances.
SEC’s Marketing Rule
The SEC’s Marketing Rule (effective as of November 2022) applies to RIAs and was established to modernise rules governing advertisements and payments to solicitors and to comprehensively regulate marketing communications.
As defined under the Marketing Rule, an “advertisement” includes any direct or indirect communication an investment adviser makes that: (i) offers advisory services with regard to securities to prospective clients or private fund investors, or (ii) offers new investment advisory services with regard to securities to current clients or private fund investors. The first prong of the definition excludes most one-on-one communications and contains certain other exclusions. The definition also generally includes any endorsement or testimonial for which an adviser provides cash and non-cash compensation directly or indirectly (eg, directed brokerage, awards or other prizes, and reduced advisory fees).
The Marketing Rule generally prohibits:
The Marketing Rule also prohibits the use of testimonials and endorsements in an advertisement, unless the adviser satisfies certain disclosure, oversight, and disqualification provisions, including:
The rule prohibits the use of third-party ratings in an advertisement, unless the adviser provides disclosures and satisfies certain criteria pertaining to the preparation of the rating.
Finally, the rule prohibits including in any advertisement:
Marketing to US State and Local Government Entity Investors
Rule 206(4)-5 under the Advisers Act (the “Pay to Play Rule”) is generally designed to address pay-to-play abuses involving campaign contributions made by certain investment advisers or their covered associates to government officials who are in a position to influence the selection of investment advisers to manage government client assets, including the assets of public pension funds and other public entities. Among other things, Rule 206(4)-5 prohibits certain investment advisers from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or employees makes a campaign contribution to certain elected officials or candidates who can influence the selection of certain investment advisers.
In soliciting investments from any US state or local government entities, investment advisers should consider any applicable US state or local lobbying rules that may apply.
Many funds (in particular, private equity funds) will use placement agents to market and sell interests. Generally, entities that are engaged in brokering the purchase or sale of securities for issuers are required to register as broker-dealers under the Exchange Act. All arrangements with placement agents must also comply with the Marketing Rule regarding testimonials and endorsements (see 4.4 Rules Concerning Marketing of Alternative Funds).
In addition, the manner in which an investment adviser compensates its employees in connection with US sales and marketing activities can raise broker-dealer concerns. Determining whether a person is a broker-dealer can be fact intensive. One of the most frequently considered factors when determining if employees are acting as unregistered brokers is whether they receive compensation directly or indirectly related to, or based on, transactions in securities of the fund or its portfolio companies.
Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1 generally provides that an associated person (or employee) of an issuer who participates in the sale of the issuer’s securities would not have to register as a broker-dealer if that person at the time of participation:
US federal and state tax consequences depend on the jurisdiction and the tax status of each particular investor in a fund.
US Tax-Exempt Investors
US tax-exempt investors, such as charitable organisations, pension funds, private foundations and individual retirement accounts, are generally exempt from US federal income taxation except to the extent that they earn UBTI, which can arise when a fund that is a pass-through entity for US federal income tax purposes borrows money to fund its investments. In addition, UBTI can arise if a fund is itself engaged in a US trade or business or invests in pass-through portfolio companies conducting a US trade or business. Blocker structures or parallel funds can be utilised to minimise UBTI for US tax-exempt investors.
US Taxable Investors
A typical US non-corporate investor is subject to US federal income tax at a maximum rate of 37% plus an additional 3.8% tax applicable to the investor’s net investment income. A typical US corporate investor is subject to US federal income tax at a rate of 21%. Various limitations may apply to a US non-corporate investor’s ability to deduct certain losses and expenses. Some of these limitations may depend on the activities of the fund. A US corporate investor is typically not subject to such limitations.
Non-US Investors
Withholding tax
US withholding taxes of 30% generally apply to certain types of non-business income (typically, US-source dividends and certain dividend equivalent income, and limited types of US-source interest income – commonly referred to as Fixed, Determinable, Annual, or Periodical, or “FDAP” income) allocable by a US fund to non-US investors. Certain exemptions or reductions in tax rate may be available under applicable tax treaties. Foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds are not subject to US withholding tax on certain types of US-source income, including dividends and interest. Capital gain income is also not generally subject to US income or withholding tax unless it is attributable to investments in US real property interests.
Income tax
Non-US investors can also be subject to US federal income tax on income and gains that are ECI. For example, loan origination by a fund may be treated as generating ECI, which would require a non-US investor to pay US federal income tax and file a US income tax return. Domestic funds with non-US investors are required to make quarterly tax payments to the IRS on account of ECI allocable to non-US investors and must withhold US tax from redemption payments to the extent attributable to ECI-generating investments. Additionally, non-US investors may be required to file tax returns and pay taxes in US states where the fund generates ECI.
Utilisation by Investors
Non-US investors in funds may be able to claim tax treaty benefits (typically, a reduction in or complete exemption from 30% US withholding tax described above) under an income tax treaty between their jurisdiction of residence and the United States. In order to establish eligibility to claim tax treaty benefits, a non-US investor should claim such benefits on an applicable IRS Form W-8 provided to the fund.
Structuring Issues
Certain jurisdictions, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, may limit the availability of tax treaty benefits to a resident of those jurisdictions that invests in a fund organised as an LLC rather than as a limited partnership. For this reason, US funds that are targeting non-US investors may choose to be organised as limited partnerships rather than as LLCs.
Under FATCA, US funds are generally required to collect and remit a 30% US withholding tax on their payments of US-source dividends and interest to a non-US “foreign financial institution” or “non-financial foreign entity” (each as defined) unless such non-US person makes certain certifications or provides certain information relating to its US owners or qualifies for exemption from FATCA.
Typically, a US fund will obtain an appropriate IRS Form W-8 from its foreign investors that will include the requisite FATCA certifications. Different rules may apply to foreign financial institutions located in jurisdictions that have an intergovernmental agreement with the United States governing FATCA.
During regulatory examinations, the SEC staff will typically request information from investment advisers regarding AML compliance policies and procedures. Information requested frequently includes the identity of private fund investors.
On 28 August 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published a rule that imposes certain anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism programme and other Bank Secrecy Act-related obligations on most private fund managers, including RIAs and “exempt reporting advisers”, effective 1 January 2026. The final rule responds to public comments by adopting a narrower definition of “investment adviser” than initially proposed in February 2024, and excludes from the definition: RIAs that register with the SEC solely because they are (i) mid-sized advisers; (ii) multi-state advisers; or (iii) pension consultants; as well as RIAs that are not required to report any AUM to the SEC on Form ADV.
The final rule also addresses comments relating to how the proposed rule would apply to RIAs or ERAs that have a principal office and place of business outside the United States. For these investment advisers (defined as “foreign-located investment advisers” in the final rule), the final rule only applies to their advisory activities that (i) take place within the United States, including through the involvement of US personnel of the investment adviser or (ii) provide advisory services to a US person or a foreign-located private fund with an investor that is a US person.
Regulation S-P requires RIAs and their funds to adopt written policies and procedures that address administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of customer records and information. This includes protecting against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of customer records and information and against unauthorised access to or use of customer records or information. The rule also requires firms to provide initial and annual privacy notices to customers describing information sharing policies and informing customers of their rights.
On 15 May 2024, the SEC adopted amendments to Regulation S-P, the regulation that governs the treatment of non-public personal information about consumers by certain financial institutions. The amendments apply to RIAs and are designed to modernise and enhance the protection of consumer financial information.
On 9 February 2022, the SEC proposed additional rules and amendments to ensure that RIAs maintain more robust cybersecurity policies. The proposed rules and amendments primarily include the following: (i) proposed Rule 206(4)-9 under the Advisers Act, which would require RIAs to address cybersecurity risks in their policies and procedures; (ii) proposed Rule 204-6 under the Advisers Act, which would require RIAs to report all material cybersecurity incidents to the SEC by submitting a new Form ADV-C; and (iii) requiring RIAs to include cybersecurity incidents in Part 2A of their Form ADVs.
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago
IL 60601-9703
(312) 558 3769
(312) 558 5700
snaidech@winston.com www.winston.com/enContinuation Funds Rising
GP-led secondaries have become a mainstay of the private funds landscape, and their prominence continues to expand. Over the past decade, these transactions have become a well-established mechanism for offering liquidity solutions to general partners and investors. The typical continuation fund transaction (although one should expect a fair degree of customisation in any such process) will often include the following features:
Because these transactions include the sale of one or more portfolio assets among affiliated entities controlled by the same adviser (or affiliated advisers), conflicts of interest should be disclosed and appropriately approved (often by the fund’s limited partner advisory board) as part of the transaction process. Moreover, as a general matter it will be important for a fund general partner to show a full and fair process by which pricing was achieved, often involving hiring a financial adviser to lead a secondary process. Typically, a fairness opinion or valuation report will be obtained in connection with the transaction (along with disclosure of any conflicts involved with respect to an institution issuing such fairness opinion or valuation report).
Overall, these transactions have become an excellent way to achieve liquidity for investors in both single- and multi-asset sale transactions. When done right, these transactions facilitate price maximisation through an arm’s length auction process and provide investors with an option to achieve liquidity or maintain their existing stake.
Moreover, these transactions allow fund general partners to pursue liquidity options even where the market for underlying portfolio assets may not be ideal or where they need more time to achieve optimal value. The continuation fund is a vehicle through which a fund sponsor can:
These transactions are highly bespoke. Sponsors seeking to pursue liquidity options through continuation vehicles should consult their legal counsel to ensure that the transactions are being structured in a manner that:
SBIC Programme
As the fundraising market has tightened, there has been a significant increase in the number of venture capital and private equity funds applying to operate as a small business investment company (SBIC). SBICs are licensed and regulated by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and subject to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder (the “SBIC Act”). Most licensed SBIC funds apply for SBA funding, known as leverage, as they believe the receipt of SBA funding will enhance their operations and returns, and that the benefits associated with becoming an SBIC far outweigh the risks and regulatory oversight and constraints.
Description of the SBIC programme
The SBIC programme was created by Congress in 1958. SBICs are privately organised and privately managed profit-motivated investment firms licensed by the SBA that, with their own capital and with funds obtained through the federal government, provide capital to small independent businesses, both new and already established.
Types of SBICs
There are four types of SBICs: (i) leveraged regular debenture fund; (ii) accrual debenture fund; (iii) reinvestor fund; and (iv) unleveraged fund. Currently, the amount of debentures (regular or accrual) outstanding from a single SBIC cannot exceed USD175 million, and the amount outstanding from a group of commonly managed SBICs cannot exceed USD350 million.
Leveraged regular debenture fund
A leveraged regular debenture SBIC receives funding from the SBA in the form of debentures. Each debenture received by the SBIC has a ten-year maturity and is not amortised prior to maturity. Interest is paid semi-annually. The interest rate is established when the debentures are issued and is calculated based on a market-driven spread above the ten-year U.S. Treasury rate. Debentures are unsecured, and no personal guarantees are required. Prepayments of the debentures can be made without penalty. Most regular debenture SBICs execute a debt-oriented strategy in later-stage companies that can pay regular interest, although a minority of regular debenture funds are control and buyout focused.
Accrual debenture fund
Funds receiving an accrual debenture license receive funding from the SBA in the form of accrual debentures. Unlike the regular debenture programme, accrual debentures accrue interest over a ten-year term and the interest is reserved by the SBA as part of the leverage issuance. Similar to the regular debentures, the accrual debentures are unsecured and the interest rate is established when the debentures are issued and calculated based on a market-driven spread above the ten-year U.S. Treasury rate. Principal can be prepaid without penalty any time following the two-year anniversary of the settlement date of the accrual debenture. All outstanding interest and annual fees must be paid before principal repayments of the accrual debentures can be made. Funds that have applied to be an accrual debenture SBIC are generally venture capital, growth equity or buyout-oriented where the regular payment of interest by the portfolio companies is not required.
Reinvestor SBIC fund
A fund receiving a reinvestor SBIC license receives funding from the SBA in the form of accrual debentures, and the reinvestor SBIC is required to invest a majority of its capital (private and SBA leverage) in underserved fund managers. Those underserved fund managers must in turn invest in SBIC compliant transactions.
Unleveraged SBIC fund
A fund receiving an unleveraged SBIC license receives no funding from the SBA. Funds that apply to the SBA for an unleveraged license do so to attract financial institutions as investors. Certain financial institutions may invest in SBICs where they otherwise may be prohibited from investing in other similar vehicles due to a financial institution’s limitations on private equity investments pursuant to the “Volcker Rule” of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Licensing
A proposed SBIC fund must file a comprehensive license application (which includes legal documents) with the SBA. During the licensing process, the SBA reviews the applicant’s business plan, projections and legal documents and conducts reference and other background checks on the management team. At the conclusion of the licensing process, a successful applicant is issued a “green light” letter, which certifies that the management team will be issued an SBIC license when the SBA approves final legal documentation, evidence of sufficient investor subscriptions and there have been no adverse changes to the applicant.
Restrictions on SBIC investments
All SBICs must follow certain guidelines with respect to their investments in order to be deemed in good standing and remain eligible for SBA leverage. These guidelines include but, are not limited to:
Additionally, SBA regulations generally preclude investments in the following types of businesses: (i) other SBICs (except that a reinvestor SBIC may invest in an unleveraged SBIC); (ii) finance and investment companies or finance-type leasing companies; (iii) unimproved real estate; (iv) companies with less than one-half of their assets and employees in the USA; (v) with certain exceptions, passive businesses; (vi) companies that will use the proceeds to acquire farmland; (vii) cemetery subdividers or developers; and (viii) with certain exceptions, investments that are purchased other than from an issuer. An SBIC may not be a general partner of a partnership.
Operational requirements
There are a number of regulations intended to assure an SBIC’s proper management and operations. If a leveraged SBIC defaults on its payment obligations under the SBA debentures, fails to comply with the applicable SBIC regulations or is otherwise found to be in violation of the SBIC Act, the SBA has a series of remedies that it may impose, including the right to accelerate the maturity of all amounts due under its debentures. Additionally, in such instances, the SBA can remove the general partner of an SBIC, bring suit for the appointment of a receiver for an SBIC and for its liquidation.
Financial institution investment and Community Reinvestment Act
One advantage of being an SBIC is the ability to have financial institutions as investors. Generally, financial institutions are precluded from investing in private equity and venture capital funds. Further, an investment by a financial institution in an SBIC (leveraged or unleveraged) whose regional focus includes the financial institution’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) assessment area is specifically identified as a type of investment that will be presumed by the regulatory agencies to promote economic development and meet the standards of a “Qualified Investment” for CRA purposes. Thus, an investment in an SBIC by a regulated financial institution is eligible for full credit under CRA, with full credit being defined as 100% of the dollar amount of the investment in the SBIC.
US Regulatory Trends
The regulatory landscape for private funds continues to grow more complex, with new rules and regulations adopted and proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and various other regulatory authorities. The following are some highlights of court actions, new or proposed rules and regulatory initiatives.
Courts
Private fund rules vacated
One welcome relief came on 5 June 2024, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated five regulations and related amendments under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) known as the Private Fund Adviser Rules (PFAR or “Private Fund Rules”). In August 2023, the SEC adopted PFAR to oversee the conduct of investment advisers to private funds. Even though the Private Fund Rules have been vacated, and the SEC has determined not to appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court, the Private Fund Rules provide valuable insight into the thinking of the staff at the SEC. As such, regardless of whether the SEC appeals the ruling, the SEC may attempt either to re-propose similar rules or guide conduct through examination and enforcement. Generally, the primary Private Fund Rules were:
Chevron deference no more
For the last 40 years, based on “Chevron deference”, federal administrative agencies have won over 90% of the lawsuits filed against them by private plaintiffs seeking to set aside final agency regulations or final agency orders. In 2024, the regulatory landscape changed dramatically when the Supreme Court of the United States in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo abandoned the Chevron deference doctrine. Now, federal courts must interpret ambiguous federal statutory language without being required to accept an agency’s interpretation. This change in interpretative methodology is expected to frustrate federal financial agencies in their attempts to make policy and embolden regulated financial firms, including private fund managers, to challenge agency action.
Certain new rules
Beneficial ownership reporting
Beginning January 2024, private fund managers must now consider the potential reporting and structural implications that result from the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), and the regulations implementing the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements of the CTA (for simplicity, the CTA and the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)’s implementing regulations are collectively referred to as the “BOI Reporting Rule”). Among other things, private fund managers must now analyse whether certain reporting obligations apply to entities within their fund structure and whether it is feasible to consider structural changes to simplify or minimise reporting obligations under the BOI Reporting Rule.
SEC adopts rules elaborating on the “dealer” definition
On 6 February 2024, the SEC adopted new Rules 3a5-4 and 3a44-2 (collectively, the “New Dealer Rules”), which expand the definition of a “dealer” and “government securities dealer” under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). In short, the final rules require market participants that take on significant liquidity-providing roles to register with the SEC, become members of a self-regulatory organisation, and comply with federal securities laws and regulatory obligations. Hedge funds are more likely to meet the New Dealer Rules’ definition of dealing, while private equity funds are less likely.
U.S. Department of Labor publishes final amendment to the QPAM exemption
On 3 April 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published its final amendment (the “QPAM Amendment”) to Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14 (the “QPAM Exemption”). The QPAM Exemption is heavily relied on by investment professionals who manage the assets of certain employee benefit plans subject to the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, plans and accounts subject to Section 4975 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code and private funds that are treated as plan asset vehicles (collectively, “Benefit Plans”). A “QPAM” includes an RIA that (i) meets specified asset and equity thresholds under the QPAM Exemption, and (ii) exercises discretionary authority over Benefit Plan assets. Among many changes to the QPAM Exemption, the QPAM Amendment increased assets under management and equity thresholds required for QPAM status, requires a filing with the DOL, imposes a ten-year disqualification for criminal convictions and “prohibited misconduct”, and requires record-keeping of compliance with the QPAM exemption.
Amendments to Regulation S-P
On 15 May 2024, the SEC adopted amendments to Regulation S-P under the Advisers Act, the regulation that governs the treatment of non-public personal information about consumers by certain financial institutions, including RIAs. The amendments to Regulation S-P generally (i) require RIAs to develop and maintain written policies and procedures for an incident response programme that is reasonably designed to detect, respond to, and recover from unauthorised access to or use of customer information; (ii) require that the response programme include procedures for RIAs to provide timely notification to affected individuals; and (iii) broaden the scope of information covered by Regulation S-P’s requirements.
AML/CFT compliance obligations
On 28 August 2024, FinCEN published a rule that imposes certain anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism programme and other Bank Secrecy Act-related obligations on most private fund managers, including RIAs and “exempt reporting advisers”, effective 1 January 2026. The final rule responds to public comments by adopting a narrower definition of “investment adviser” than initially proposed in February 2024, and excludes from the definition RIAs that register with the SEC solely because they are (i) mid-sized advisers, (ii) multi-state advisers, or (iii) pension consultants; as well as RIAs that are not required to report any AUM to the SEC on Form ADV.
The final rule also addresses comments relating to how the proposed rule would apply to RIAs or ERAs that have a principal office and place of business outside the United States. For these investment advisers (defined as “foreign-located investment advisers” in the final rule), the final rule only applies to their advisory activities that (i) take place within the United States, including through the involvement of US personnel of the investment adviser or (ii) provide advisory services to a US person or a foreign-located private fund with an investor that is a US person.
Certain proposed rules
Proposed Safeguarding Rule
On 15 February 2023, the SEC issued a proposed rule to significantly amend Rule 206(4)-2 of the Advisers Act, more commonly known as the custody rule (the “Custody Rule”). The proposed rule would replace the Custody Rule with Rule 223-1 (the “Safeguarding Rule”). Beyond a change in nomenclature, the proposed Safeguarding Rule would greatly expand the scope of RIA’s responsibilities and duties to their clients, including private funds.
SEC proposed rule on outsourcing by investment advisers
On 26 October 2022, the SEC proposed Rule 206(4)-11, a new rule under the Advisers Act that would prohibit RIAs from outsourcing certain services without meeting the requirements set forth in the rule. If adopted, the proposed rule would introduce four main requirements for RIAs: (i) due diligence and monitoring; (ii) books and records; (iii) oversight of service providers serving as recordkeepers; and (iv) changes to Form ADV.
Proposed rule to address conflicts of interest associated with the use of predictive data analytics by investment advisers
On 26 July 2023, the SEC proposed new rules under the Advisers Act to eliminate, or neutralise the effect of, certain conflicts of interest associated with investment advisers’ interactions with investors using technologies that optimise for, predict, guide, forecast, or direct investment-related behaviours or outcomes. The SEC also proposed similar amendments to rules under the Exchange Act for broker-dealers.
Certain regulatory initiatives
Continued focus on the Marketing Rule
The SEC continues to focus on compliance with Rule 206(4)-1 under the Advisers Act (the “Marketing Rule”).
On 17 April 2024, the Division of Examinations (the “Division”) of the SEC released a Risk Alert, “Initial Observations Regarding Advisers Act Marketing Rule Compliance”, which provides observations related to investment advisers’ compliance with the Marketing Rule.
The Division generally observed policies and procedures that were not “reasonably designed or implemented to address compliance with the Marketing Rule”, which resulted in gaps for preventing violations of the Marketing Rule.
Off-channel communications
The SEC has ramped up its investigations of “off-channel” communications taking place at broker-dealers and RIAs. Generally, an “off-channel” communication is a communication, whether internal or external, using personal texting platforms and other electronic communication services that are not approved by the firm.
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago
IL 60601-9703
(312) 558 3769
(312) 558 5700
snaidech@winston.com www.winston.com/en