Firm News
Schulte Roth & Zabel Announces New Director of Diversity & Inclusion Rachel V. Simmonds-Watson
October 28, 2019
Schulte Roth & Zabel (SRZ) is pleased to announce the addition of Rachel V. Simmonds-Watson as its Director of Diversity & Inclusion, resident in the firm’s New York office. She joins the firm from Debevoise & Plimpton, where she served as Diversity Manager for more than 10 years.
Ms. Simmonds-Watson has more than 10 years of experience developing and implementing diversity and inclusion programming in law firms. In her new role at SRZ, she will oversee the firm’s diversity and inclusion initiatives and policies. Ms. Simmonds-Watson will work closely with the firm’s Executive Committee, Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Committee, Affinity Groups and Professional Development and Recruiting Departments.
“We are delighted to have Rachel join us. She is a leader in the field of diversity and inclusion, and a stalwart advocate of equality in the workplace,” commented Taleah Jennings, SRZ litigation partner and co-chair of SRZ’s D&I Committee. “We are excited to have Rachel’s experience and expertise at SRZ. We have been increasing the quality and breadth of our D&I programming in recent years, and we look forward to Rachel helping us do even better,” added David Nissenbaum, SRZ investment management partner and co-chair of SRZ’s D&I Committee. The D&I Committee guides diversity and inclusion efforts in all areas of the firm, from recruitment and professional development to promotion and leadership.
“Rachel is a proven leader who has demonstrated a deep commitment to improving diversity and inclusion in the legal industry. We are very pleased to have her lead the firm’s efforts in this critical work,” commented Alan Waldenberg, chair of SRZ’s Executive Committee.
“I am thrilled to be at Schulte, where I see great momentum and an energetic commitment to improving the experiences of all lawyers and business staff. I look forward to working together with the firm leadership to make a real and lasting impact on this community and beyond,” said Ms. Simmonds-Watson. She holds a B.A. in international studies from the New York University School of Continuing and Professional Studies, where she was a Founder’s Day Scholar. Ms. Simmonds-Watson is a member of the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals, where she has held various leadership positions. She is also a member and former vice chair of the Diversity Section of the National Association for Legal Career Professionals.
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.