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. 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for private funds is complex, but many rules proposed by the SEC and other regulatory authorities have either been rescinded or postponed in 2025. Significant new rules from recent years are still in force, which include those relating to the protection of customer information and advertisements and marketing communications. Proposed rules that have been rescinded or delayed include those relating to beneficial ownership reporting, addressing conflicts of interest in predictive data analytics, the safeguarding of customer assets, outsourcing, cybersecurity risk management, status as a “dealer” and anti-money laundering.
Alternative funds are formed to accommodate a variety of investment strategies. 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 (eg, venture capital funds, growth equity funds, buyout funds, distressed funds or credit funds).
Open-ended funds will generally permit investors to invest in or redeem from the fund 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 (eg, using a “side pocket” structure).
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 via US jurisdictional means. Offers and sales of securities in the United States 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. Like Rule 506(b), Rule 506(c) has the same limitations on resale and is subject to “bad actor” disqualification. 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 an 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 2.3 Disclosure/Reporting Requirements and 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 4.7 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 pre-empted 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 generally 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; (ii) has less than USD100 million of regulatory assets under management and is registered with and subject to examination by a state; or (iii) 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:
Managers that are registered as CPOs and/or CTAs may rely on certain exemptions to avoid certain of their record-keeping and disclosure requirements for a fund. See 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers.
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 (at a 21% rate) 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 4.8 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 for Funds and 4.8 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 RIA to place the fund’s securities with custodians who meet the definition of “qualified custodian” and to deliver audited annual financial statements of the fund to its investors (by delivering audited financial statements, the RIA is relieved of various other requirements of the Custody Rule).
Many new rules proposed by the SEC and other regulatory authorities in 2024 have either been rescinded or postponed in 2025.
In February 2025, the SEC dropped its appeal of the decision by the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas to vacate recently adopted rules 3a5‑4 and 3a44‑2 (the “Dealer Rules”) (which would have required 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).
On 26 March 2025, the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published an interim final rule that revised the definition of “reporting company” in its regulations implementing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) to mean only those entities formed under the law of a foreign country that have registered to do business in any US state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office.
On 12 June 2025, the SEC formally withdrew virtually all proposed new rules related to investment managers, including a proposed Rule 206(4)-11 under the Advisers Act that would prohibit RIAs from outsourcing certain “covered functions”, a proposed rule that would have replaced the Custody Rule regarding the safeguarding of client assets, and a proposed rule to address conflicts of interest associated with the use of predictive data analytics by investment advisers.
On 5 August 2025, FinCEN issued an order providing exemptive relief for registered investment advisers and “exempt reporting advisers” until 1 January 2028 from certain anti-money laundering and other Bank Secrecy Act-related obligations. FinCEN stated that it intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that could include substantive changes to the anti-money laundering rules that were originally effective from 1 January 2026.
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 generally 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 purchase or sale of securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issues analyses or reports concerning securities.
An adviser that falls within the definition of “investment adviser” may have to register under the Advisers Act and be subject to its substantive requirements, unless an exemption applies (see 2.3 Disclosure/Reporting Requirements).
Exemptions from Registration under the Advisers Act. Common exemptions from registration as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act for private fund managers 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
If a fund invests in Commodity Interests, the fund will fall within the definition of a “commodity pool”. The operator (ie, sponsor or general partner) 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 whose interests are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, 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. A registered CPO also can rely on Rule 4.13(a)(3) for qualifying funds, which exempts the registered CPO from most of the disclosure and record-keeping obligations it otherwise would have for the fund.
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. For an adviser with its principal place of business outside the USA, the adviser need only count US-based clients for purposes of such 15-client limitation. In order to rely on the “de minimis” exemption in CFTC Rule 4.14(a)(10), no regulatory filing or approval is necessary.
Generally, 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 USD4 million in securities or USD400,000 in futures margin or options on futures premium, or some proportional combination of the foregoing). Qualified purchasers, “knowledgeable employees”, certain regulated entities or investment professionals, as well as non-US investors generally, are also deemed to be QEPs. The practical impact of the definition of a QEP is that funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) to avoid registration as an investment company typically have subscription agreements that include representations regarding QEP status, whereas funds relying on Section 3(c)(7) can rely on the representation that the investor is a qualified purchaser.
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, however, 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 4.7 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. 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 can be structured as an LLC, an S corporation or as a limited partnership. Various tax considerations (including US self-employment tax considerations, desire to treat equity owners as employees, etc) 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. Generally, any person who directly or indirectly owns more than 25% of the voting securities of an RIA is presumed to have control.
In 2025, the SEC withdrew its proposed new rules that would have required 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.
On 12 June 2025, the SEC withdrew the proposed investment adviser rule addressing conflicts of interest from the use of artificial intelligence.
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 Private Fund Adviser Rules, 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.
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. Exempt reporting advisers are subject to the Advisers Act anti-fraud rule.
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 generally 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 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.
Sponsors of private funds are able to raise capital from qualified high net worth investors based on the applicable exemptions under the Investment Company Act and Securities Act. For private funds structured to rely on the Section 3(c)(1) exemption of the Investment Company Act, the private fund’s securities can be held by no more than 100 US beneficial owners (inclusive of certain “anti-pyramiding” look-through rules). For private funds structured to rely on the Section 3(c)(7) exemption of the Investment Company Act, the private fund’s securities can be held solely by ultra-high net worth investors that qualify as “qualified purchasers” under the Investment Company Act. Sponsors are permitted to form two parallel funds, one 3(c)(1) private investment fund and the other a 3(c)(7) qualified purchaser fund, and the two funds are not integrated for purposes of determining qualification under the applicable exemption.
In addition to private funds, registered investment companies (such as mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (or ETFs), closed-end funds, business development companies (or BDCs), and interval funds) can offer interests to retail investors through registered offerings complying with the Securities Act and Investment Company Act disclosure and prospectus delivery requirements. Once securities are registered and sold (or listed) in a public offering, they are available to retail investors.
Alternative funds are subject to the requirements of the Securities Act concerning private placements of their securities to US persons or via US jurisdictional means. Most funds typically rely on the registration exemption provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the “safe harbour” of Rule 506 under Regulation D under the Securities Act. Sponsors seeking to access larger pools of high net worth investors using general solicitations or advertising may consider Rule 506(c) under Regulation D. Rule 506(c) allows issuers to offer and sell securities through general solicitation or advertising, provided that all purchasers are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify each purchaser’s accredited status (beyond simply relying on purchaser representations). Sponsors relying on Rule 506 should be mindful of the authority of US states to enforce their anti-fraud laws and to require notice filings depending on the applicable state securities laws.
Many funds (in particular, private equity funds) will use placement agents to market fund interests. Generally, entities that are engaged in brokering the purchase or sale of securities are required to register as broker-dealers under the Exchange Act, and all arrangements with placement agents must also comply with the Marketing Rule (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 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 facts is whether such employee receives compensation directly or indirectly related to 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 the 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, FinCEN published a rule that imposes certain anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism programme and other Bank Secrecy Act-related obligations (the “IA AML Rule”) on most private fund managers, including RIAs and “exempt reporting advisers” (“Covered IAs”). On 5 August 2025, FinCEN issued an order providing exemptive relief for Covered IAs from all requirements of the IA AML Rule until 1 January 2028. During the postponement of the IA AML Rule, FinCEN stated that it intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose a new effective date for the IA AML rule no earlier than 1 January 2028. It is expected that this NPRM could include substantive changes to the IA AML Rule, considering FinCEN’s earlier announcement that it intends to revisit the substance of the IA AML Rule together with the FinCEN-SEC joint proposed rule establishing customer identification programme rule requirements for Covered IAs.
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.
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago
IL 60601-9703
USA
(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 CV is a vehicle through which a fund sponsor can:
These transactions are highly bespoke. Sponsors seeking to pursue liquidity options through CVs 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence receives no funding from the SBA. Funds that apply to the SBA for an unleveraged licence 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 licence 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 licence when the SBA approves final legal documentation, evidence of sufficient investor subscriptions and there have been no adverse changes to the applicant.
SBA and Department of Defense partnership
The SBA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have established the SBICCT programme, a partnership between the SBA and the DOD to increase investment in the DOD’s designated critical technologies (CTAs). SBIC funds (accrual, regular debenture, and unleveraged) that qualify for and elect to participate in the programme will be required to enter into a compliance agreement with the SBA which, among other things, requires the SBIC and the SBIC’s general partner to covenant that the SBIC will exercise strategic intent to invest at least 60% of its total invested capital in portfolio companies directly involved in CTA development and/or supply chain and component-level technologies and processes intended to enable such development. The SBA and the DOD have the right to approve all limited partners of the SBIC and all owners and employees of the SBIC general partner and management company. Both the SBIC and its portfolio companies will have an obligation to protect their technologies deemed important to US national and economic security in order to prevent unacceptable influence or control of US adversaries.
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 remains complex, but deregulation is the current theme at 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
Dealer rule vacated
In November 2024, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated recently adopted rules 3a5‑4 and 3a44‑2 (the “Dealer Rules”). On 6 February 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted the Dealer Rules, which expand the definition of a “dealer” and “government securities dealer” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). In short, the Dealer Rules required 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. The SEC initially appealed the decision, but with the change in administration, dropped the appeal in February 2025.
Status of certain new rules
Beneficial ownership reporting only required for certain non-US entities
Private fund managers formed under the laws of the United States are no longer subject to 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 (the “BOI Reporting Rule”). FinCEN published an interim final rule on 26 March 2025, that revised the definition of “reporting company” in its regulations implementing the CTA to mean only those entities formed under the law of a foreign country that have registered to do business in any US state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office.
Delayed effectiveness of Investment Adviser Anti-Money Laundering Rule
On 4 September 2024, FinCEN published a final rule that imposes certain anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism programme and other Bank Secrecy Act-related obligations (the “IA AML Rule”) on most private fund managers, including RIAs and “exempt reporting advisers” (“Covered IAs”). The final rule was originally effective from 1 January 2026. On 5 August 2025, FinCEN issued an order providing exemptive relief for Covered IAs from all requirements of the IA AML Rule until 1 January 2028. During the postponement of the IA AML Rule, FinCEN stated that it intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose a new effective date for the IA AML Rule no earlier than 1 January 2028. We expect that this NPRM could include substantive changes to the IA AML Rule, considering FinCEN’s earlier announcement that it intends to revisit the substance of the IA AML Rule together with the FinCEN-SEC joint proposed rule establishing customer identification programme rule requirements for Covered IAs.
Certain proposed rules withdrawn
Proposed Safeguarding Rule withdrawn
On 15 February 2023, the SEC issued a proposed rule to significantly amend Rule 206(4)-2 of the Advisers Act (the “Custody Rule”). The proposed rule would have replaced the Custody Rule with Rule 223-1 (the “Safeguarding Rule”), and would have greatly expanded the scope of RIA’s responsibilities and duties to their clients, including private funds. On 12 June 2025, the SEC formally withdrew the proposed Safeguarding Rule.
SEC proposed rule on outsourcing by investment advisers withdrawn
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 record-keepers; and (iv) changes to Form ADV. On 12 June 2025, the SEC formally withdrew proposed Rule 206(4)-11.
Proposed rule to address conflicts of interest associated with the use of predictive data analytics by investment advisers withdrawn
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. On 12 June 2025, the SEC formally withdrew these proposed rules.
Certain regulatory initiatives
Continued focus on 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.
Private funds and Defined Contribution Plans
In 2025, private fund managers could be poised for significant opportunities as regulatory changes are expected to facilitate defined contribution (DC) retirement plans, such as 401(k)s, allowing participants to invest in alternative assets. On 28 May 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) rescinded its 2022 cautionary guidance on cryptocurrencies in retirement plans, which restored a neutral, facts-and-circumstances approach to how a fiduciary evaluates whether to include cryptocurrencies in a plan’s menu. On 7 August 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order, “Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors”, directing agencies to expand guidance that facilitates 401(k) access to alternative assets. The Order defines alternative assets broadly to encompass private equity, real estate, digital assets, commodities, and infrastructure. The Order also instructs the DOL to re-examine ERISA fiduciary duties and propose rules or guidance with safe harbours within 180 days (by 3 February 2026) to curb litigation and clarify processes for including alternative assets in asset allocation funds. The Order further instructs the SEC to consider ways to facilitate access to alternative assets in DC retirement plans, including consideration of revisions to SEC regulations and guidance relating to accredited investor and qualified purchaser status. For private fund managers, these changes could unlock trillions in DC retirement plan assets. However, private funds that meet or exceed 25% benefit plan investor ownership and cannot rely on an exception, such as being a Venture Capital Operating Company or a Real Estate Operating Company, will presumably still require full ERISA compliance.
Digital assets
The regulatory landscape for digital assets in the United States continues to evolve, as the United States has shifted its position to a more permissive and pro-innovation approach to the regulation of digital assets. The increased regulatory clarity will likely lead to additional investment in digital assets by funds and other institutional investors.
In July 2025, Congress passed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (the “GENIUS Act”), which establishes the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. Shortly thereafter, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (the “CLARITY Act”) was passed by the House of Representatives, which codifies jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC, and sets forth definitions for digital commodities, digital asset custodians, and trading entities. The Senate is currently considering its own version of the CLARITY Act.
The SEC has been issuing various statements as to whether certain digital assets or products are within its jurisdiction, including with respect to stablecoins, meme coins, and types of digital asset staking, all of which the SEC has said do not constitute securities or securities activities. On 12 June 2025, the SEC formally withdrew 14 proposed rulemakings, many of which targeted the digital asset space, including digital asset custody and decentralised finance (DeFi).
Investment managers that participate in the digital asset market will need to comply with potential future obligations under both withdrawn SEC proposals and emerging legislation – particularly around registration requirements, custody, cybersecurity, digital asset definitions, and fiduciary responsibility. Under the CLARITY Act, digital commodity brokers and exchanges will be required to utilise “qualified digital asset custodians” and comply with segregation, reporting, and risk-management standards. The CLARITY Act also calls for the broadening of CFTC oversight for digital commodities, which may subject certain investment managers to Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) or Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) responsibilities absent an exemption.
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago
IL 60601-9703
USA
(312) 558 3769
(312) 558 5700
snaidech@winston.com www.winston.com/en