Alternative Funds 2025 Comparisons

Last Updated October 16, 2025

Law and Practice

Authors



Mori Hamada & Matsumoto is one of the largest full-service Japan-headquartered law firms. A significant proportion of its work is international in nature, representing clients in cross-border transactions, litigation and other dispute resolution proceedings. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is one of the world’s leading international law firms. It was established in 1884 and now has more than 1,500 lawyers. Headquartered in New York with offices in Beijing, Boston, Brussels, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Luxembourg, Palo Alto, São Paulo, Tokyo and Washington, DC, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett provides co-ordinated legal advice and transactional capability to clients around the globe.

Depending on the metrics, Japan is currently the world’s fourth- or fifth-largest economy by GDP, with sophisticated and well-developed debt and equity capital markets, and is home to many world-leading corporations. So it may be surprising that, until recently, the Japanese alternatives industry lagged behind that of other developed countries. However, Japanese fundraising and M&A activity has increased significantly over the past decade, and Japan’s domestic alternatives investment industry is becoming increasingly attractive to both domestic and foreign investors.

Private equity has a clear and unique value proposition in Japan, as a majority of the economy is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, in addition to there being a persistent under-penetration of M&A, a paucity of succession options in light of Japan’s declining birth rate and rapidly aging population, and high inheritance taxes. Against this backdrop, recent government policies have directly and indirectly helped to foster the development of the domestic alternatives industry. The tightening of listing requirements on the Tokyo Stock Exchange has made take-private transactions by private equity firms more attractive, and reforms in law and at self-regulatory organisations such as the Japan Investment Trust Association have helped to make it easier for Japanese investors (particularly high net worth and retail investors) to access historically higher performing alternative investments for the first time.

Please refer to the Japan Trends and Developments chapter in this guide for information on key trends.

A variety of alternative funds can be established in Japan, including buyout, venture capital, private credit, hedge funds, real estate funds including J-REITs (ie, listed real estate investment trusts), and infrastructure funds, and there are relatively few limits on the types of foreign funds that can be marketed to Japanese investors.

The following six types of domestic fund structures may be formed under Japanese law and are commonly used by sponsors for their private equity funds. Their key characteristics and common uses are summarised below.

Nin’i Kumiai (NKs)

A nini kumiai (commonly referred to as an NK) is a type of contractual partnership that has been permitted under the Japanese Civil Code since it came fully into force in 1898. As a contractual partnership, an NK is governed under a written partnership agreement. It is a basic pass-through entity (ie, treated as being tax transparent) for Japanese tax purposes. An NK does not have separate legal personality under Japanese law. In an NK, both the fund manager and its investors (ie, its “members”) are deemed to be partners in a general partnership. All partners therefore generally share in the profits and losses of the partnership and have unlimited liability.

To mitigate unexpected losses, NK partnership agreements commonly declare that the fund manager will be ultimately liable for losses of the partnership, although third parties that transact with the partnership may still be legally entitled to assert claims against the partnership’s investors for their losses, notwithstanding any contractual agreements in the partnership agreement to the contrary. NKs are commonly used for small joint ventures, legacy fund structures and syndications, although the potential lack of limited liability can be a concern for investors.

Investment Business Limited Partnerships (IBLPs)

An IBLP (sometimes referred to by Japanese practitioners as an LPS) is a form of limited partnership established under a law enacted specifically to create this vehicle: the Limited Partnership Act for Investment (IBLP Act), which was enacted in 1998 to promote investment funds in Japan. The IBLP is the most commonly used vehicle for private equity funds in Japan.

It is based on the Civil Code partnership (NK), but with several additional features introduced by the special law, the most significant of which is the introduction of limited liability for investors (ie, limited partners), to the amount of their capital contribution. The manager of the fund acts as the general partner and has unlimited liability for the debts and obligations of the IBLP. Similar to an NK, an IBLP does not have separate legal personality under Japanese law. IBLPs are generally prohibited from investing 50% or more of their assets in foreign corporations, and must be registered in the commercial registry within two weeks of formation.

Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs)

A Japanese LLP (yūgen sekinin jigyō kumiai) is a variation of the Civil Code partnership (NK) and is permitted under the Japanese Limited Liability Partnership Act, which became effective in 2005. In a Japanese LLP, each partner’s liability may be limited to the aggregate amount of its contributions to the LLP. Similar to NKs and IBLPs, Japanese LLPs do not have separate legal personality under Japanese law. They are typically treated as pass-through (ie, tax transparent) for purposes of Japanese law.

A key requirement for a Japanese LLP is that all partners must actively participate in the partnership’s activities; passive investment is not permitted. As a result, Japanese LLPs are typically not suitable for private equity funds seeking to raise capital from a broad range of passive institutional investors. However, where there are only a few investors who contemplate being actively involved in the fund’s investment activities, as may be the case with corporate venture capital funds, a Japanese LLP may be a suitable option.

Like IBLPs, Japanese LLPs must be registered in the commercial registry within two weeks of establishment.

Tokumei Kumiais (Silent Partnerships or TKs)

Another type of fund-like arrangement commonly used by alternative investment funds is a tokumei kumiai, commonly known as a “silent partnership” or a TK. TKs have been permitted under the Japanese Commercial Code since it became effective in 1899. Originally based on the German form of silent partnership (stille gesellchaft), a TK is not technically a fund and does not have separate legal personality; rather, it is a bilateral contractual relationship between a TK operator and a TK investor that meets certain requirements required of TKs under the Japanese Commercial Code.

In a TK, the TK investor and TK operator enter into a TK agreement that sets forth the terms under which the TK investor must contribute capital to a particular business operated by the TK operator, and under which the TK operator must distribute the TK investor’s share of profits from that business. The TK investor must be “silent” with respect to the operation of the TK operator’s business, with all business activities conducted in the operator’s name (and not, eg, in the name of a “fund”).

Funds contributed by the TK investor become the property of the TK operator. A TK investor does not have a direct interest in the assets of the business, and their liability is limited to the amount of their contribution. There are no registration requirements for forming a TK, although it must meet certain requirements set forth under the Commercial Code, including that the TK investor remains silent with respect to management and governance of the bilateral arrangement. Being characterised as a TK will permit TK investors to achieve certain preferential tax treatment.

A TK is essentially pass-through, although the tax treatment of a TK differs from other pass-through partnerships, particularly for individual TK investors, in that the TK investors will generally be subject to tax on its share of profits at the same rate as would be the case for ordinary income (instead of being taxed at a lower rate as capital gain income).

TKs are often used in combination with a Japanese gōdō kaisha (GK), which is a limited liability company that acts as the TK operator, in an arrangement known as a GK-TK scheme. Multiple parallel GK-TK arrangements may also be used to mimic a fund arrangement, subject to each GK-TK meeting the legal requirements applicable to TK arrangements. GK-TK arrangements are commonly used for real estate transactions, often below investor-facing aggregation vehicles.

Investment Trusts (Tōshi Shintaku or Tōshin)

Investment trusts, known as tōshi shintaku or tōshin, are domestic trusts that are established pursuant to a trust agreement and are subject to regulation under the Act on Investment Trusts and Investment Corporations (AITIC). In a tōshin, a trustee holds the trust property and a manager manages the trust. The tōshinhas no separate legal personality.

The AITIC requires certain filings and disclosures to be made. Under the AITIC, there are two categories of investment trusts, but the type most commonly used is the “Investment Trust Managed under Instructions from the Settlor”, which is limited to investing in certain specified assets, such as securities and real estate. A tōshin is commonly used for Japanese retail mutual funds and ETFs.

Investment Corporations (Tōshi Hōjin)

An investment corporation (tōshi hōjin) is a legal entity established primarily to pool funds from multiple investors for investment in various types of assets. Investment corporations are also subject to regulation under the AITIC. An investment corporation is a standard structure used for Japanese Real Estate Investment Trusts (J-REITs). Investors hold units in the tōshi hōjin.

The tōshi hōjin is required to satisfy certain criteria, including a requirement to distribute most of the income it receives within the same fiscal year in which it receives it. Satisfaction of these criteria will enable the tōshi hōjin to maintain pass-through tax treatment for Japanese tax purposes. This structure is common for both listed and non-listed REITs.

The Japanese regulatory regime generally divides alternative investment funds into two broad categories – partnership-type funds and corporate-type funds, with different regulatory regimes applying to each. In practice, partnership-type funds tend to be more commonly used for Japan-focused funds. Partnerships are characterised as collective investment schemes, with their interests falling within the definition of “securities”, as enumerated in Articles 2(2)(v) and 2(2)(vi) of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA). Consequently, any partnership-type entity that accepts Japanese investors is generally subject to regulation under the FIEA, even if the partnership is formed and operated outside of Japan and the partnership’s general partner is a non-Japanese entity.

If the partnership is subject to regulation under the FIEA, the general partner may be subject to separate (but sometimes overlapping) compliance regimes that govern the marketing (the “Marketing Regulations”) and management (the “Investment Management Regulations”) of the fund. Being subject to either the Marketing Regulations or the Investment Management Regulations would require the general partner to either register with the Financial Services Agency (FSA) or perfect an exemption therefrom by making a notice filing with the applicable authorities. A general partner would generally become subject to the Marketing Regulations if it were to engage in the offering of its interests in Japan or to Japan-resident investors, and would generally become subject to the Investment Management Regulations if it were to engage in investment management in respect of Japanese investors.

The Marketing Regulations and the Investment Management Regulations presume that the relevant activities are conducted by the general partner of the partnership, rather than by any third-party manager of the fund. Therefore, any registration or notice filing requirement under the Marketing Regulations or the Investment Management Regulations would typically be an obligation of the general partner of the relevant fund and not, for example, of a third-party manager or adviser.

Marketing Regulations

Under the Marketing Regulations, the general partner of a fund would, in principle, need to either register with the FSA as a “Type II Financial Instruments Business Operator” (a FIBO) or perfect an available exemption from registration in order to market interests in partnership-type private equity funds to Japan-resident investors. Registration as a Type II FIBO is a document-intensive process and may take several months (or even years) to complete. In light of the administrative burden and time requirements, many funds – at least initially – seek to perfect applicable exemptions from registration under the Marketing Regulations – eg, under Article 63 of the FIEA. Alternatively, a foreign fund may engage an existing Type II FIBO (such as a securities firm) and delegate the marketing of the fund to Japanese investors to such third-party firm.

Investment Management Regulations

Similar to the Marketing Regulations, general partners of partnership-type funds that have one or more Japanese investors are generally required to register with the FSA as a Type II “Investment Management Business Operator” (IMBO) or perfect an exemption from registration, although a broader set of exemptions may be available than under the Marketing Regulations. It generally takes longer to register as a Type II IMBO than to register as a Type II FIBO; as a result, foreign private equity funds often seek to rely on exemptions from the IMBO registration obligation to the extent available.

Exemptions

There are three main exemptions used by general partners of partnership-type funds:

  • the Article 63 Exemption under the FIEA;
  • the so-called “de minimis” exemption; and
  • a foreign investor exemption that was introduced in 2021.

Article 63 Exemption

One of the more frequently used exemptions available under both the Marketing Regulations and the Investment Management Regulations is the Exemption for Special Business Activities for Qualified Institutional Investors, stipulated in Article 63 of the FIEA (the Article 63 Exemption) (a general partner relying on this exemption is referred to herein as an “Article 63 Exempted Operator”). Perfecting this exemption permits an eligible general partner of a fund with Japanese investors to engage in both marketing activities (including offering the interests in a fund to Japanese investors) and investment management activities in Japan. The general partner can perfect this exemption by making a “Form 20” notice filing with the FSA. The documents required to perfect the Article 63 Exemption can be submitted to the FSA in English.

Generally, the Article 63 Exemption requires that:

  • at least one of the fund’s investors is a “Qualified Institutional Investor” (QII);
  • the fund has no more than 49 Japanese investors who are not QIIs;
  • each Japanese non-QII investor is an Eligible Non-QII;
  • none of the Japanese investors is deemed a “disqualified investor”, including investors who are collective investment schemes (eg, fund-of-funds) that do not qualify for certain exemptions;
  • the general partner submits a copy of its organisational document (articles of incorporation, LLC agreement, etc);
  • officers and certain employees of the general partner submit their resume (CV) to the FSA and certify their compliance with certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the FIEA;
  • the partnership interests are subject to certain transfer restrictions; and
  • if the general partner is not a Japan resident, a local representative in Japan (who will be responsible for communication with the FSA) is appointed by the general partner.

In addition, the general partner will be required to comply with certain ongoing obligations under the FIEA, including:

  • submitting a business report together with its balance sheet and profit and loss statements to the FSA within three months of the end of each fiscal year;
  • making certain parts of its Form 20 and the business report available to the public (eg, on its website); and
  • promptly filing an amended Form 20 after any relevant changes and/or submitting a copy of the general partner’s updated organisational documents if it is updated.

Article 63 Exempted Operators are also subject to supervision and enforcement by the FSA, including with respect to reporting requirements, on-site inspections and business improvement orders or business suspension orders.

For purposes of counting the number of investors in determining eligibility for the Article 63 Exemption, the exemption looks through fund-of-funds to the ultimate upper-tier investors, which must be included in counting the number of investors for purposes of the 49 non-QII investor threshold. Moreover, certain types of fund vehicles are prohibited from investing in a fund using the Article 63 Exemption.

The entire list of Article 63 Exempted Operators is publicly available on the FSA’s website.

Qualified Institutional Investors (QIIs)

QIIs are effectively the lynchpin of the Article 63 Exemption. The exemption is not available to general partners without a Japanese QII, making it difficult to perfect an exemption from registration without one. The definition of a QII is set by cabinet order under the FIEA. Investors that automatically qualify as QIIs include:

  • banks;
  • insurance companies; and
  • IBLPs.

In addition, companies and individuals that hold investment assets (ie, securities) of at least JPY1 billion in value can become QIIs by duly making a filing with the FSA; this filing must be renewed biennially.

QIIs qualify as “professional investors” under the FIEA, so general partners that market to QIIs can take advantage of certain reduced regulatory burdens with respect to financial transactions, as discussed in relation to certain regulatory obligations described in more detail below.

Eligible Non-QIIs

Japanese investors who are not QIIs but who meet certain other requirements may qualify as “Eligible Non-QIIs” and can participate in a fund managed by Article 63 Exempted Operators. While the requirements for qualification as an Eligible Non-QII are substantially lower than those for a QII, the threshold may still be challenging for typical individual investors.

Transfer restrictions

As noted above, Japanese investors who invest in funds that rely on the Article 63 Exemption will be subject to certain restrictions on the transfer of their interests in such funds. Under these transfer restrictions, QIIs may only transfer their partnership interests to other QIIs, while Japanese non-QIIs may only transfer their entire interests to a single investor that is either a QII or an Eligible Non-QII. Appropriate transfer restrictions should be included in the relevant fund documentation (eg, the fund’s partnership agreement, subscription agreement, or other documents) in order to assure eligibility for the Article 63 Exemption.

De minimis exemption

Another exemption that may be available to the general partner of a partnership-type non-Japanese private fund that is marketed to Japanese investors is the so-called “de minimis exemption”. If the requirements for this exemption are met, the general partner would be exempted from registration as an IMBO and would also not need to make a Form 20 notice filing under the Investment Management Regulations.

The de minimis Japanese QII exemption requires that:

  • the non-Japanese fund has fewer than ten direct or indirect Japanese investors – the rules look through collective investment schemes (eg, fund-of-funds) and count indirect Japanese investors of such a scheme for purposes of determining the number of Japanese investors;
  • all direct and indirect Japanese investors in the fund must be QIIs; and
  • aggregate capital contributions from Japanese investors must represent no more than one third of the aggregate capital contributions of all investors in the fund.

This exemption is only available with respect to the Investment Management Regulations; it is not available with respect to the Marketing Regulations. Therefore, subject to certain exceptions (eg, marketing through a placement agent or intermediary that is a Type II FIBO), the general partner of a foreign fund would still need to perfect an exemption from the registration requirements under the Marketing Regulations by making a Form 20 notice filing to offer interests to investors in Japan.

Typically, a general partner relying on the de minimis exemption would:

  • rely on the Article 63 Exemption for marketing the fund to Japanese investors in compliance with the Marketing Regulations, by making the Form 20 notice filing;
  • abolish the notice filing after final close; and
  • rely on the de minimis exemption for purposes of the Investment Management Regulations, which is beneficial to general partners as it effectively exempts them from some of the more burdensome ongoing filing and compliance obligations under the Investment Management Regulations.

Foreign investor exemption

A new exemption for “Specially Permitted Business for Foreign Investors” (the foreign investor exemption) was introduced in 2021, and is generally available to foreign fund managers who establish a physical office in Japan. Satisfying the requirements for this exemption may be challenging for foreign fund managers; according to the FSA website, as of August 2025, only one applicant has utilised this exemption to date.

In order to qualify for this exemption, a number of criteria must be satisfied, including that:

  • a majority of the aggregate capital contributions to the fund must be made by investors that are not Japanese residents;
  • the investors in the fund must meet certain criteria stipulated in the FIEA, including that any individual investors (other than sophisticated investors) in the fund must have no less than JPY300 million in net investment assets; and
  • the foreign fund manager must maintain a physical office in Japan.

Since this exemption is intended for foreign funds with a global investor base, Japanese investors eligible to invest under this exemption are generally limited to professional investors (a “professional investor” is defined under the FIEA to include QIIs, publicly listed companies, Japanese corporations whose capital is reasonably expected to be no less than JPY500 million, and foreign legal entities).

A foreign fund manager that relies on the foreign investor exemption is permitted to engage in both marketing activities and investment management activities in Japan by making a “Form 21-4” notice filing with the FSA. A foreign fund manager relying on this exemption will be subject to regulations and ongoing obligations similar to those applicable to general partners that rely on the Article 63 Exemption.

Significant reforms took effect in 2016 that imposed heightened public disclosure requirements on general partners relying on the Article 63 Exemption. The main disclosure requirements are summarised below.

Form 20-2 Disclosure

After filing the Form 20, an Article 63 Exempted Operator must, without delay, make certain information included in the Form 20 available either on its website or by other method that can be accessed easily by the public. The pro forma Form 20-2 is available on the FSA website. The FSA will publicly disclose the Form 20-2 on its website after submission.

Annual Disclosure of Business reports and Disclosure Booklets

Article 63 Exempted Operators are obliged to submit a “Business Report” on Form 21-2 annually within three months of the end of each fiscal year. If the only Japanese investors in the fund are professional investors, certain information may be omitted from the Business Report, including the composition of fund assets.

The Article 63 Exempted Operator must also publicly disclose a “Disclosure Booklet” on Form 21-3 (ie, an excerpt from the Business Report) at its office in Japan, on its website or by other means, for a period of one year, commencing four months after the end of each fiscal year of the general partner.

Sponsors of a Japanese private equity fund have typically been Japan-based entities. However, in recent years, there has been a notable increase in the number of non-Japanese private equity sponsors establishing Japan-related funds.

Japanese LLPs have become increasingly common as the management entity used for such funds, and are particularly favoured where individual fund managers intend to receive carried interest from the fund.

It has been fairly common for domestic sponsors of Japanese private equity funds to act directly as the general partner of the managed fund, notwithstanding potential risks around liability. More recently, however, there has been a trend toward adopting a management company structure, under which a dedicated management company is established to manage and operate the fund business, with separate general partner vehicles formed for each separate fund or vintage. This structure allows for clearer segregation of responsibilities and better risk management and ring-fencing of liabilities across multiple funds.

Please see 2.1 Types of Alternative Funds and Structures and 2.2 Regulatory Regime for Funds.

There is no special tax regime applicable to fund managers in Japan. For the tax treatment of carried interest allocated to individual fund managers, please see 3.6 Taxation of Carried Interest.

Please see 2.4 Tax Regime for Funds.

FSA Notice on Tax Treatment of Carried Interest

Under Japan’s tax regime for partnership funds, where the carried interest allocated under the waterfall provisions of a limited partnership agreement (LPA) differs from a strict pro rata distribution based on each partner’s contributions, the distribution must be justified by demonstrating “economic rationality” in relation to the partnership’s business.

Until recently, however, the meaning of “economic rationality” had not been clearly defined. This issue has been particularly important for individuals serving as fund managers, since taxation for individuals depends on the classification of income (unlike the uniform corporate tax rate). A key question has therefore been whether carried interest received by individuals should be taxed as capital gains from the transfer of shares, or instead as business income or miscellaneous income arising from compensation for services rendered to the partnership.

On 1 April 2021, the FSA sought clarification from the National Tax Agency (NTA) on the concept of “economic rationality” in relation to carried interest. The FSA subsequently published a notice outlining the NTA’s response, the key points of which are summarised below.

Basic Principles

Under the guidance provided by the NTA, economic rationality must be assessed in light of the specific terms of each partnership agreement. That said, where the following conditions are satisfied, economic rationality will generally be recognised, and taxation on fund managers will follow the distribution ratios set forth in the partnership agreement.

With respect to the partnership agreement and the fund manager:

  • the execution of the partnership agreement and the management of partnership assets must comply with applicable laws and regulations; and
  • the fund manager must contribute capital (cash or other assets) to the partnership.

With respect to profit distributions, carried interest must be expressly provided for in the partnership agreement’s profit distribution provisions.

With respect to economic rationality:

  • the terms and conditions relating to the distribution of profits under the partnership agreement must not be arbitrary;
  • the terms of the partnership agreement must be generally consistent with prevailing market practice; and
  • the fund manager must make substantive contributions to the partnership’s business.

With respect to non-arbitrary distribution conditions, the notice clarifies that such conditions require that the partnership agreement must have been entered into with the consent of all partners, and that the partnership must have multiple partners with potentially conflicting interests.

The notice clarifies that the requirement that terms of the partnership agreement must be generally consistent with prevailing market practice references a widely used distribution structure, including a hurdle with a catch-up followed by an 80/20 split. Since this waterfall is fairly standard in the industry, funds that follow this model would likely be deemed to be in conformity with market practice.

In light of the NTA’s response, carried interest received by individual fund managers will, in principle, likely be taxed as capital gains or losses arising from the transfer of shares, rather than as income arising from compensation of services, if the following conditions are met:

  • the partnership has multiple partners with divergent interests;
  • the general partner properly fulfils its obligations as the general partner of the partnership;
  • the partnership agreement clearly specifies how carried interest will be allocated; and
  • the profit splits and core economics of the fund do not materially depart from prevailing market practice.

Ancillary Documents

The FSA has also published some additional clarification relating to the notice:

  • “Check Sheets” to confirm that the conditions for carried interest treatment are satisfied; and
  • “Calculation Sheets” to break down carried interest income.

The FSA requests that these documents be attached to the final tax return for the fiscal year in which carried interest is reported.

Under the FIEA, in principle, investment management can only be delegated to an entity that is registered as an IMBO, and investment advice can only be provided by an entity that is registered as an investment adviser. By contrast, the outsourcing of other business operations is generally permitted. A number of service providers in Japan offer outsourcing solutions, particularly for fund administration and related operational support.

For recent regulatory developments concerning the outsourcing of middle- and back-office operations, please refer to 2.9 Rules Concerning Service Providers.

Japan does not adopt economic substance doctrine or economic substance tests. Please see 2.8 Local/Presence Requirements for Funds for the requirements regarding the appointment of a Japanese representative by an Article 63 Exempted Operator.

As a general matter, private equity funds operating under the Article 63 Exemption are not required to report changes in their shareholders.

By contrast, a party that becomes a major shareholder (shuyō kabunushi) of an IMBO registered under the FIEA must file a notice of such circumstances with the FSA. In addition, FIBOs are required to notify the FSA of changes in their parent company (eg, a new parent company, or a change in the name or address of the existing parent company).

There are no specific regulations applicable to fund managers in relation to AI and the use of data. However, fund managers are subject to the Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Information in the Financial Sector at the same level as other financial institutions, such as banks.

No substantial changes to the regulations relating to private equity fund managers are expected in the short term.

Traditionally, Japanese banks and large trading companies have been the principal investors in private equity funds. However, recent regulatory reforms have enabled pension assets – most notably the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) – to take a more active role in private equity investing.

In addition, the Japanese private equity market has increasingly attracted non-Japanese investors, some of whom invest directly into funds established under Japanese law.

Please see 2.2 Regulatory Regime for Funds and 2.3 Disclosure/Reporting Requirements regarding the rules concerning the marketing of alternative funds.

Until recently, Japanese retail and high net worth investors have not been significant investors in private equity funds. This has been due in part to regulatory restrictions, such as the rule under the Article 63 Exemption that only allows fewer than 50 Japanese non-QII investors to invest in a partnership-type fund, and regulatory limitations that made it difficult to distribute foreign alternative funds to Japanese retail and high net worth investors in a form that would be familiar to such investors.

Recently, however, securities firms and a few major private equity fund sponsors have increasingly focused on marketing to high net worth and retail investors. In particular, some securities firms now offer investment trust products that repackage private equity funds, making them accessible to a broader base of high net worth investors. Rule changes at the Japan Investment Trust Association that took effect at the end of 2024 also now permit domestic securities firms to distribute domestic investment trusts that invest in certain target foreign alternative investment funds, and the first such products have now begun to be distributed to Japanese retail and high net worth investors.

The rules on private placements and general solicitation under the FIEA are generally less restrictive than those in the United States. For example, there are no strict gun-jumping rules with respect to private placements of partnership interests in Japan; in practice, some Japanese private equity funds issue press releases announcing the initial closing of a fund even while continuing to fundraise and hold subsequent closings.

Although rules on solicitation are generally more liberal than in the United States, practitioners should still note that there are some significant compliance regulations under the FIEA’s marketing regime. For example, fund managers relying on the Article 63 Exemption are required to make a significant notice filing and disclose certain information in their offering materials, and in some cases must make certain information publicly available.

Mori Hamada & Matsumoto / Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Marunouchi Park Building
2-6-1 Marunouchi
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8222
Japan

41st Floor 9-10, Roppongi 1-Chome
Ark Hills Sengokuyama Mori Tower 41st Floor
Minato-Ku
Tokyo 106-0032
Japan

+81 3 6266 8904 / +81 3 5562 6200

+81 3 6266 8804 / +81 3 5562 6202

Author Business Card

Contributed By Winston & Strawn

Law and Practice

Authors



Winston & Strawn has served as a trusted adviser and advocate for clients across virtually every industry for more than 170 years. Its national funds practice advises private fund sponsors, alternative asset managers, funds of funds, pension plans, family offices, and institutional investors on all aspects of their fund formation transactions. The practice also addresses special situations, sponsor separations, fund restructurings and other GP-led secondary transactions. The practice is also among the most active in LP secondaries transactions by volume, representing both buyers and sellers on secondary transactions, as well as lead and syndicate LPs on their investments in continuation funds, tender offers, and other GP-led secondaries transactions. Winston & Strawn also has the nation’s leading SBIC practice, the largest by market share, advising on 60-70% of the USD41 billion annual programme, reflecting consistent growth and prominence in the sector. The firm’s transactional capabilities are supported by its financial services, regulatory, tax, and compliance capabilities, including SEC regulatory and compliance issues and SEC examinations.

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:

  • Funds: Funds targeting US investments typically will be formed as Delaware limited partnerships or limited liability companies. Depending on the tax needs of the investors, US and non-US investors may invest in these structures directly or indirectly via one or more feeder vehicles or in parallel funds or other alternative fund structures. In the USA, Delaware is widely known as the “go-to” jurisdiction for entity formation given, among other things, its wide recognition, well-developed body of case law, robust legal protections, freedom to contract, and low startup costs (with Texas and Nevada gaining recognition for many of the same reasons). Also, its state courts are highly experienced in resolving complex business disputes and generally known for respecting the freedom to contract. Other US states or non-US jurisdictions will be used where appropriate to accommodate particular tax, regulatory or other legal needs.
  • General Partner or Other Managing Entity (eg, Managing Member or Manager): They have the legal power to act on behalf of the fund. Depending on the structure and tax characteristics, this entity also typically receives the “carried interest” or “incentive/performance allocation” (although it is not unusual for the profits interests to be allocated to a special purpose vehicle).
  • Management Company or Investment Adviser: They are appointed to provide investment advisory services to the fund, employ the investment team, provide management or investment advisory services and generally manage the day-to-day operations of the fund. This entity typically receives a management fee for its services.
  • Other related entities may be formed to accommodate the tax, regulatory and other legal needs of the investment adviser or the fund and its investors.

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:

  • Limitation on Manner of Offering: There should be no general advertising or “general solicitation”.
  • Limitations on Resale:
    1. Offering materials should include special legends regarding US selling and transfer restrictions.
    2. Each purchaser should represent in the fund’s subscription agreement that it is acquiring the interests for its own account and not with a view to resale or distribution thereof, and each purchaser should further undertake that it will only resell the interests in accordance with the Securities Act and the fund’s transfer restrictions.
  • Nature of and Limitation on Number of Purchasers: Offers and sales of interests should only be made to institutions and individuals that qualify as “accredited investors” (“accredited investors”), as defined in Regulation D. Rule 506(b) does allow for offers and sales to up to 35 financially sophisticated investors so long as those non-accredited investors are provided with disclosures that are similar to what would be required in a public/registered offering.
  • “Bad Actor” Disqualification: The fund, the general partner or the management company can be subject to disqualification if they have committed “bad acts”. The fund itself can be disqualified if more than 20% of its securities are owned by investors who are “bad actors”.
  • SEC Filing: Form D must be filed with the SEC within 15 days of the fund’s first sale of securities, and any annual amendments thereto must be filed while the offering is ongoing.

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.

  • Section 3(c)(7) provides an exclusion for a privately offered fund whose interests are beneficially owned by “qualified purchasers”. “Qualified purchasers” generally include (i) individuals, family-owned businesses, and trusts for family members that own USD5 million or more in “investments”; (ii) a trust (not addressed in (i)) that is not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring securities, and where the trustee or other person authorised to make decisions with respect to the trust, and each settlor or other person who has contributed assets to the trust, qualifies as a qualified purchaser; (iii) entities that own and invest at least USD25,000,000 in investments and that were not formed for the purpose of making the investment; and (iv) entities exclusively owned by qualified purchasers.
  • Section 3(c)(1) provides an exclusion for a privately offered fund whose interests are beneficially owned by not more than 100 beneficial owners (this limit is increased to 200 for certain qualifying venture capital funds). A fund structured under Section 3(c)(1) must adhere to various “anti-pyramiding” rules that are designed to prevent circumventing the 100-investor limit. Where a fund forms two parallel funds, one a 3(c)(1) private investment fund with 100 or fewer non-qualified purchasers and the other a 3(c)(7) qualified purchaser fund with an unlimited number of qualified purchasers, the two funds are not integrated for purposes of determining whether the first qualifies under the applicable exemption.

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:

  • file a Form ADV with the SEC and keep it current by filing periodic amendments, including an annual amendment;
  • comply with the “brochure rule”, which requires most advisers to provide clients and prospective clients with information about the adviser’s business practices and its principals’ educational and business backgrounds (most advisers satisfy this requirement by providing part 2 of Form ADV);
  • maintain accurate and current books and records and be subject to inspection and examination by the SEC staff;
  • complete Form PF filings, which contain more detailed information on the funds it manages or advises, and which are required to be filed on an annual or quarterly basis or more frequently with respect to certain events;
  • adopt and maintain written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and related regulations and have a code of ethics governing employee behaviour (including personal trading reporting, and restrictions and enforcement of certain insider trading procedures);
  • comply with the Marketing Rule (see 3.3 Regulatory Regime for Managers); and
  • only charge performance-based fees (ie, carried interest) to investors that are “qualified clients” as defined in Rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act.

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:

  • distribute monthly or quarterly account statements to pool participants within 30 days of month-end or quarter-end;
  • distribute an annual report to pool participants within 90 days of the pool’s fiscal year-end; and
  • file Form PQR with the NFA on a quarterly basis, providing specific information about the manager and the commodity pools that it operates.

Managers registered as CTAs must generally:

  • file Form PR with the NFA within 45 days after the quarters ended in March, June and September; and
  • file a year-end report within 45 days of the calendar year end.

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.

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:

  • The private fund adviser exemption applies to advisers who solely manage private funds with less than USD150 million in assets under management in the United States. An adviser may be required to file as an exempt reporting adviser depending on its principal place of business and its regulatory assets under management.
  • The venture capital fund adviser exemption applies to advisers who advise solely venture capital funds.
  • The foreign private adviser exemption applies to non-US advisers with limited US client and investor bases (ie, less than USD25 million in assets under management from US clients and investors, and fewer than 15 such clients and investors).
  • The SBIC exemption applies to investment advisers who solely advise entities that have received from the Small Business Administration notice to proceed to qualify for a licence as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

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:

  • devices, schemes or artifices to defraud any client or prospective client;
  • transactions that operate as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client;
  • when acting as principal for its own account, knowingly selling any security to or purchasing any security from a client for its own account, without disclosing to the client in writing the capacity in which it (or an affiliate) is acting and obtaining the client’s consent before the completion of the transaction; and
  • any act, practice or course of business that is fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative.

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.

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:

  • making untrue statements of a material fact (or omissions thereof);
  • making material statements of fact without a reasonable basis (or the ability to substantiate such statements upon demand by the SEC);
  • discussing potential benefits without providing fair and balanced treatment of associated material risks or limitations;
  • referencing specific investment advice provided by the adviser that is not presented in a fair and balanced manner;
  • including or excluding performance results, or presenting performance time periods, in a manner that is not fair and balanced; and
  • including information that is otherwise materially misleading.

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:

  • clear and prominent disclosure of whether the person giving the testimonial or endorsement (the “promoter”) is a client or is being compensated (together with additional disclosures regarding compensation and conflicts of interest); and
  • adviser compliance and oversight of such testimonial or endorsement’s compliance with the marketing rule.

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:

  • gross performance, unless the advertisement also presents net performance;
  • any statement that the SEC has approved or reviewed any presentation of performance results;
  • performance results from fewer than all portfolios with substantially similar investment policies, objectives, and strategies as those being offered in the advertisement, with limited exceptions;
  • performance results of a subset of investments extracted from a portfolio, unless the advertisement provides, or offers to provide promptly, the performance results of the total portfolio;
  • hypothetical performance (which does not include performance generated by interactive analysis tools), unless the adviser adopts and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to determine that the performance is relevant to the likely financial situation and investment objectives of the intended audience and the adviser provides certain information underlying the hypothetical performance; and
  • predecessor performance, unless there is appropriate similarity with regard to the personnel and accounts; in addition, the advertising adviser must include all relevant disclosures clearly and prominently in the 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. 

Winston & Strawn

35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago
IL 60601-9703
USA

(312) 558 3769

(312) 558 5700

snaidech@winston.com www.winston.com/en
Author Business Card

Law and Practice in Japan

Authors



Mori Hamada & Matsumoto is one of the largest full-service Japan-headquartered law firms. A significant proportion of its work is international in nature, representing clients in cross-border transactions, litigation and other dispute resolution proceedings. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is one of the world’s leading international law firms. It was established in 1884 and now has more than 1,500 lawyers. Headquartered in New York with offices in Beijing, Boston, Brussels, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Luxembourg, Palo Alto, São Paulo, Tokyo and Washington, DC, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett provides co-ordinated legal advice and transactional capability to clients around the globe.

Law and Practice in USA

Authors



Winston & Strawn has served as a trusted adviser and advocate for clients across virtually every industry for more than 170 years. Its national funds practice advises private fund sponsors, alternative asset managers, funds of funds, pension plans, family offices, and institutional investors on all aspects of their fund formation transactions. The practice also addresses special situations, sponsor separations, fund restructurings and other GP-led secondary transactions. The practice is also among the most active in LP secondaries transactions by volume, representing both buyers and sellers on secondary transactions, as well as lead and syndicate LPs on their investments in continuation funds, tender offers, and other GP-led secondaries transactions. Winston & Strawn also has the nation’s leading SBIC practice, the largest by market share, advising on 60-70% of the USD41 billion annual programme, reflecting consistent growth and prominence in the sector. The firm’s transactional capabilities are supported by its financial services, regulatory, tax, and compliance capabilities, including SEC regulatory and compliance issues and SEC examinations.