FAQs for Fund Managers Related to DOL’S Fiduciary Rule which Became Partially Effective June 9, 2017

Jul 5, 2017

Reading Time : 3 min

We note, on June 29, 2017, the DOL issued a request for information in respect of the Fiduciary Rule. In such request, the DOL has asked a series of questions regarding the impact and implementation of the Fiduciary Rule. Although too early to predict how the DOL may react to any information submitted, the tenor of these questions seems to suggest a desire to simplify and/or modify certain provisions of the rule and the terms of the related prohibited transaction exemptions. What, if any, impact that may ultimately have on an investment fund manager and the answers to the Q&As set forth below is unknown.

Q1:  What should we do if we are raising a new collective investment fund?

We recommend that subscription documents include certain representations from “benefit plan investors”1 (“Benefit Plan Investors”) to the effect that they are represented by a financial expert qualifying the investor for the carve-out from the Fiduciary Rule. See here. Please note that given the uncertainty associated with these rules, managers should consult with us if they are considering accepting subscriptions from IRA and certain small ERISA plans (under $50 million of assets) that cannot make these representations (“Unrepresented Accounts”).

Q2:  Is there anything we need to do if our private equity fund is closed prior to June 9, 2017, and/or we no longer anticipate accepting new (or follow-on) subscriptions from Unrepresented Accounts?

In general, no. Benefit Plan Investors that invested prior to June 9, 2017, should be grandfathered (this would include making subsequent capital contributions to a private equity fund in respect of a commitment). However, we recommend that the representation noted in our response to Q1 be included in any transferee documentation if the transferee is a Benefit Plan Investor. If either of the parties is an Unrepresented Account, care must be given not to make any “recommendation” that could subject the manager or its affiliates to the Fiduciary Rule. 

Q3:  Is there anything we should do with our existing hedge fund?

With respect to your existing investors, we recommend that a manager send a notice to all Benefit Plan Investors that contains the substance of the representations noted in our response to Q1 in the form of a negative consent. See here. If you have no current Benefit Plan Investors and are not actively marketing, there is no action that is needed.

If you are continuing to market your hedge funds, we recommend that you obtain affirmative representations from Benefit Plan Investors that are adding additional capital contributions to your hedge fund or new investors making their first investment to your hedge fund in the form described in Q1. To facilitate obtaining these affirmative representations, a manager may either (i) obtain a stand-alone certificate, a form of which is included here or (ii) amend the hedge fund’s existing subscription documents, including the additional subscription form to be used by existing Benefit Plan Investors making additional capital contributions. The representation to be added to your subscription documents can be found here, and the revised additional subscription form can be found here.   

Q4:  Should we be concerned about investor communications?

Until there is further clarity on these rules, it is important for managers to make certain they are not providing investment “recommendations” to either Unrepresented Accounts and/or any other Benefit Plan Investors for which they have not attained the representations described above.  Materials sent by a manager to existing and prospective investors may be deemed a recommendation for purposes of the Fiduciary Rule. Accordingly, we recommend that you include in all firm marketing materials (including reporting if it contains information that can be construed as marketing) the following legend: “The information contained in this [_________] is not intended to be, and should not be viewed as “investment advice” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. §2510.3-21 or otherwise.

 


1 That is, “employee benefit plans” subject to the fiduciary provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended; “plans” subject to Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and certain other parties whose assets are deemed to include assets of such employee benefit plans and plans.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.