Publications
SEC Staff Provides Guidance Regarding Disciplinary History Disclosure Standard in Form CRS
SRZ Private Funds Regulatory Update
October 2020
On Oct. 8, 2020, the staff of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management and of the Division of Trading and Markets released additional FAQs[1] relating to Form CRS. These FAQs are focused on disciplinary history disclosures required of Form CRS filers (e.g., registered investment advisers with natural person clients) and their personnel. Public statements from SEC personnel indicate they have observed that many Form CRS filers were either omitting the disciplinary history section of Form CRS altogether or providing additional disclosure with respect to disciplinary history, which is inconsistent with the Form CRS instructions.[2] The FAQs clarify that:
- Even if a Form CRS filer does not have a reportable disciplinary history, it must include an affirmative statement to that effect in its Form CRS;
- An adviser may separately respond for the adviser and for its personnel (e.g., “No for our firm. Yes for our financial professionals.”);
- An adviser may not alter the headings and prompts required by the Form CRS instructions to fit its disciplinary situation; and
- The Form CRS should not be used as a platform to provide additional context around a disciplinary disclosure beyond what the instructions require.
Advisers required to file Form CRS should carefully review their filings to confirm that their disciplinary history disclosures are consistent with the Form CRS instructions and other regulatory reporting.
This article appeared in the October 2020 edition of SRZ’s Private Funds Regulatory Update. To read the full Update, click here.
[1] Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Investment Management: Frequently Asked Questions on Form CRS, available here.
[2] Securities and Exchange Commission, Joint Statement Regarding New FAQs on Form CRS, available here.
This communication is issued by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP and Schulte Roth & Zabel International LLP for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this publication may be considered attorney advertising. ©2020 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP and Schulte Roth & Zabel International LLP. All rights reserved. SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL is the registered trademark of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.
Related Insights
Alerts
On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted on Jan. 1, 2021, requires certain legal entities (known as “Reporting Companies”) to file beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).[1] Judge Burke’s 53-page opinion concluded that “the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”[2] Judge Burke also issued a final judgment permanently enjoining the US Government from enforcing the CTA against the two plaintiffs —the National Small Business Association, a non-profit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies, and one of its members.[3]
Alerts
On Feb. 15, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) proposed its long-anticipated rule, which will subject certain investment advisers to significant anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing-related compliance obligations (“Proposed Rule”). Specifically, the Proposed Rule requires certain investment advisers to (i) establish and implement anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) programs, (ii) file suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) with FinCEN, and (iii) fulfill recordkeeping, information sharing, investor due diligence and other AML/CFT-related obligations mandated by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).[1] The Proposed Rule applies to investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), also known as registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and exempt reporting advisers (“ERAs”) (collectively, “Covered Advisers”). The public comment period will remain open until April 15, 2024.
Alerts
On Jan. 10, 2024, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its final rule on employee or independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for purposes of minimum wage and overtime. The final rule became effective March 11, 2024.
Alerts
On Feb. 6, the Staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management (“Staff”) issued an updated FAQ (“FAQ”) with respect to Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1 (“Marketing Rule”), excerpted below,[1] addressing the presentation of gross and net internal rates of return (“IRRs”) when the fund uses subscription lines to fund investments. Although the Staff, for quite some time, has focused during examinations on the methodology used to calculate gross and net IRRs when subscription lines are used to fund investments, the amended Marketing Rule that went into effect in November 2022[2] specifically requires that gross and net performance be calculated and presented using the same methodology and over the same period of time. In the FAQ, the Staff expressed its view that certain historical performance reporting practices are no longer permitted under the Marketing Rule, even with clear disclosure regarding the differences in methodologies utilized to calculate the net and gross performance shown.
Alerts
On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted on Jan. 1, 2021, requires certain legal entities (known as “Reporting Companies”) to file beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).[1] Judge Burke’s 53-page opinion concluded that “the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”[2] Judge Burke also issued a final judgment permanently enjoining the US Government from enforcing the CTA against the two plaintiffs —the National Small Business Association, a non-profit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies, and one of its members.[3]
Alerts
On Feb. 15, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) proposed its long-anticipated rule, which will subject certain investment advisers to significant anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing-related compliance obligations (“Proposed Rule”). Specifically, the Proposed Rule requires certain investment advisers to (i) establish and implement anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) programs, (ii) file suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) with FinCEN, and (iii) fulfill recordkeeping, information sharing, investor due diligence and other AML/CFT-related obligations mandated by the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”).[1] The Proposed Rule applies to investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), also known as registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and exempt reporting advisers (“ERAs”) (collectively, “Covered Advisers”). The public comment period will remain open until April 15, 2024.
Alerts
On Jan. 10, 2024, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its final rule on employee or independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for purposes of minimum wage and overtime. The final rule became effective March 11, 2024.
Alerts
On Feb. 6, the Staff of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management (“Staff”) issued an updated FAQ (“FAQ”) with respect to Investment Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1 (“Marketing Rule”), excerpted below,[1] addressing the presentation of gross and net internal rates of return (“IRRs”) when the fund uses subscription lines to fund investments. Although the Staff, for quite some time, has focused during examinations on the methodology used to calculate gross and net IRRs when subscription lines are used to fund investments, the amended Marketing Rule that went into effect in November 2022[2] specifically requires that gross and net performance be calculated and presented using the same methodology and over the same period of time. In the FAQ, the Staff expressed its view that certain historical performance reporting practices are no longer permitted under the Marketing Rule, even with clear disclosure regarding the differences in methodologies utilized to calculate the net and gross performance shown.
Alerts
On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional. The CTA, which was enacted on Jan. 1, 2021, requires certain legal entities (known as “Reporting Companies”) to file beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).[1] Judge Burke’s 53-page opinion concluded that “the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary or proper means of achieving Congress’ policy goals.”[2] Judge Burke also issued a final judgment permanently enjoining the US Government from enforcing the CTA against the two plaintiffs —the National Small Business Association, a non-profit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies, and one of its members.[3]