Publications
AIFMD Update: ESMA Advice on Extension of Marketing Passport Published
August 2015
On 30 July 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority (‘ESMA’) published its advice to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the extension of the marketing passport to non-EU alternative investment managers (‘AIFMs’) and alternative investment funds (‘AIFs’) under the EU Alternative Investment Managers Directive (‘AIFMD’). The marketing passport is currently only available to AIFMs and AIFs established in the EU. A passport allows such an AIFM to market its AIFs freely across the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) without the need to register the AIFs under the national private placement regimes in each EEA country. Positive advice was provided with respect to Guernsey, Jersey and Switzerland. No decision was reached and some concerns were expressed with respect to Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States. In this article, SRZ partner Anna Maleva-Otto and former SRZ lawyer Steven Whittaker discuss ESMA’s advice and ongoing country-by-country assessment of the potential extension of the AIFMD marketing passport.
Related People
Attachments
Resources
Related Insights
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted amendments (“Final Rule”)[1] to CFTC Rule 4.7, which is the primary disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping relief relied upon by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). The Final Rule only partially adopted the proposals advanced by the CFTC nearly a year ago (“Proposal”). Importantly, the CFTC has elected to double the financial thresholds required for investors to be Qualified Eligible Persons (“QEPs”) suitable to invest in a Rule 4.7 pool or fund. However, the CFTC decided not to adopt the time-consuming and detailed disclosure requirements included in the Proposal. Operators of Section 3(c)(1) pools and funds that rely on Rule 4.7 will need to adjust their documents to accommodate the new QEP financial thresholds. We do not anticipate any substantive impact on operators of Section 3(c)(7) pools and funds.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted amendments (“Final Rule”)[1] to CFTC Rule 4.7, which is the primary disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping relief relied upon by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). The Final Rule only partially adopted the proposals advanced by the CFTC nearly a year ago (“Proposal”). Importantly, the CFTC has elected to double the financial thresholds required for investors to be Qualified Eligible Persons (“QEPs”) suitable to invest in a Rule 4.7 pool or fund. However, the CFTC decided not to adopt the time-consuming and detailed disclosure requirements included in the Proposal. Operators of Section 3(c)(1) pools and funds that rely on Rule 4.7 will need to adjust their documents to accommodate the new QEP financial thresholds. We do not anticipate any substantive impact on operators of Section 3(c)(7) pools and funds.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.