• Home
  • Insights
  • Securities Law Considerations Part 2: SEC Registered Funds, Exemptions and Regulatory Considerations

BD

Securities Law Considerations Part 2: SEC Registered Funds, Exemptions and Regulatory Considerations

Title text on a cloudy background with upward arrows | Jacko Law Group, PC

The Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“40 Act”) defines an “investment company” as an issuer primarily involved in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading securities. It explicitly prohibits any engagement in buying and selling securities without SEC registration or a valid exemption. Hedge funds and comparable pooled investment vehicles fall under this definition if they meet one of the two exemptions.

Section 3(c)(1) of the ‘40 Act provides an exemption from registration for funds whose securities are beneficially owned by no more than 100 individuals at any given time. In the case of a qualifying venture capital fund with aggregate capital contributions and uncalled capital commitments below $10 million, the limit extends to not more than 250 persons. Section 3(c)(1) is frequently relied upon by private fund managers to secure registration exemption.

On the other hand, Section 3(c)(7) of the ‘40 Act offers an exemption without restrictions on the number of beneficial owners, provided the securities are exclusively owned by “qualified purchasers.” However, funds with 2,000 or more investors are obligated to register their securities with the SEC.

Funds operating under an exemption pursuant to either Sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the ‘40 Act face restrictions, prohibiting them from making public offerings of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933. Moreover, stringent limitations on advertising and general solicitation are imposed on funds relying on these exemptions under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7).

1. The 100-Beneficial Owner Criterion

In the context of assessing the 100-person threshold stipulated by Section 3(c)(1) of the ‘40 Act, individuals are typically tallied separately, and joint ownership between spouses is consolidated into one beneficial owner. The term “person” encompasses both natural individuals and corporate entities. The SEC employs a “look-through” methodology for a company investing in a fund, treating each security holder of that company as an independent investor of the fund under certain conditions. These conditions include: (i) the investing company being a registered investment company or a private investment company organized under exemptions in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the ‘40 Act, and (ii) the company holding 10% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the fund. Notably, for offshore funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) and accommodating U.S. tax-exempt investors, only U.S. investors contribute to the 100-person limit.

The Integration Doctrine
As a fund nears the threshold on the number of investors, such as 100 persons or 250 persons for a qualified venture fund, evading the limit by establishing an identical fund is not a viable strategy for managers.

To forestall the creation of identical funds each time the 100-person cap approaches, the SEC employs the “integration” doctrine. When two or more funds managed by the same sponsor exhibit substantial similarity, the SEC integrates these funds, treating them as a singular entity. In cases of integration, the SEC combines the total number of investors across the funds to assess whether, collectively, they surpass the 100-person mark.

It’s crucial to note that the SEC refrains from integrating two funds if one falls under Section 3(c)(1) and the other under Section 3(c)(7). Furthermore, the SEC typically avoids integration between domestic and offshore funds.

2. Qualifying Investors in a Section 3(c)(1) Fund

When a fund opts for the Section 3(c)(1) exemption, it taps into investor interest through Rule 506 under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933. Securities governed by Rule 506 are exclusively available for purchase by “accredited investors” and, under specific circumstances, up to 35 “sophisticated investors.”

Under Regulation D, eight categories of “accredited investors” are outlined, including but not limited to:

  • Individuals with a net worth exceeding $1,000,000, or joint net worth with a spouse, excluding the net value of their primary residence as per the Dodd-Frank Act.
  • Individuals with an individual annual gross income exceeding $200,000, or a combined annual gross income with a spouse exceeding $300,000, in each of the two most recent years, and with a reasonable expectation of a similar income in the current year.
  • Executives, directors, managing members, or general partners of the issuer.
  • Participants in an employee benefit plan under ERISA, either guided by a plan fiduciary from a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser, or holding total assets exceeding $5,000,000.
  • Trusts and other vehicles with total assets surpassing $5,000,000, not formed exclusively for acquiring an interest in the fund, and directed by a sophisticated investor.
  • Entities where every equity owner qualifies as an accredited investor.

A “sophisticated investor” is an individual, alone or with purchaser representative(s), possessing the financial and business acumen to evaluate the merits and risks of a fund investment effectively.

3. Investor Eligibility in Section 3(c)(7) Funds: Navigating the Criteria

Participation in a Section 3(c)(7) fund demands adherence to the “qualified purchaser” status, encompassing:

  • Individuals holding investments not below $5 million.
  • Individuals, including institutional investors, managing their accounts or those of other qualified purchasers, collectively wielding a discretionary investment authority exceeding $25 million.
  • “Family owned companies” with ownership of a minimum of $5 million in investments, directly or indirectly possessed by two or more individuals related as siblings or spouses, including former spouses, or direct lineal descendants by birth or adoption, spouses of such individuals, the estate of such individuals, or foundations/charitable organizations/trusts established for their benefit.
  • Other trusts not exclusively formed to acquire Section 3(c)(7) fund securities, where both the trustee and contributors to the trust qualify as purchasers.

Fund Manager Regulation: Investment Advisers Act
According to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) an “investment adviser” is an entity or person providing compensated advice on securities. Private fund managers, categorized as investment advisers, may leverage exclusions from SEC registration. Key exemptions include:

  • Intrastate Advisers: Exempt if clients reside solely in the manager’s state, avoiding advice on nationally traded securities.
  • S.-Based Private Fund Managers: Exempt if managing private funds, with assets under $150 million in the U.S., adhering to Sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the ‘40 Act.
  • Foreign Private Advisors: Exempt if lacking a U.S. office, having less than 15 U.S. clients in private funds, managing less than $25 million for U.S. clients, and not presenting as a U.S. investment adviser.
  • Venture Capital Advisors: Exempt if following venture capital strategies, lacking redemption rights, with specific asset allocation and borrowing limitations.
  • Small Business Investment Company Advisers: Exempt when advising solely Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs).
  • Exempt Investment Advisers: Compliance with Advisers Act’s other rules, despite exemption, is mandatory, covering disclosure, record-keeping, reporting, marketing, custody, and capital raising.
Limitation on Performance-Based Fees by Registered Advisers

Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act limits registered advisers from receiving performance-based compensation. Exceptions apply if the contract involves exempt funds, non-U.S. residents, or “Qualified Clients.” Qualified Clients meet specific financial criteria:

  • Net worth over $2,000,000 or a “qualified purchaser” pre-contract.
  • At least $1,000,000 under management with the manager post-contract.
  • Certain managerial or employee categories.

For section 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) funds, individual investors or fund qualification determines “Qualified Client” status.

Recent Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act

In August 2023, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 underwent significant updates, impacting both private fund advisers and registered investment advisers. Notable changes include:


Preferential Treatment Rule for Private Fund Advisers:

  • Disclosure requirements for economic preferential treatment among fund investors.
  • Prohibition on selective information sharing about portfolio investments.
  • Restrictions on granting preferential redemption abilities.


Compliance Date and Legacy Funds:

  • Compliance dates vary based on private fund assets.
  • Legacy funds face exclusions under specific circumstances.


Restricted Activities Rule for Private Fund Advisers:

  • Restrictions on regulatory/compliance expense reimbursement without disclosure.
  • Allocation rules for expenses associated with co-investments.
  • Clawback reduction disclosure for taxes.
  • Prohibition on adviser borrowing without disclosure and majority consent.


Compliance Date and Legacy Funds:

  • Compliance dates vary based on private fund assets.
  • Legacy funds have exclusions under specific circumstances.


New and Amended Rules for Registered Investment Advisers:

  • Annual Audit Rule: Annual audited financial statements within 120 days of fiscal year-end.
  • Quarterly Statement Rule: Quarterly disclosures within specified time frames.
  • Adviser-Led Secondaries Rule: Compliance with new transaction requirements.
  • Books and Records Rule/Compliance Procedures and Practices Rule: Amendments for written records and documented annual reviews.


Application to Non-U.S. Advisers:

  • Rules apply to advisers with their principal office in the U.S.


Legal Challenge:

  • Industry associations have legally challenged the rules.
  • Compliance obligations remain unaffected during litigation.

These updates emphasize the changing securities regulatory landscape, prompting investment fund managers to reassess practices and compliance protocols.


Commodity Exchange Act

A fund manager trading commodity futures contracts or options must register as a commodity pool operator (CPO) under the Commodity Exchange Act. CPOs are subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules, including record-keeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements.

The National Futures Association must approve the fund’s offering document. Exemptions from regulatory requirements may be sought if, among other conditions, the fund’s commodity transactions’ initial margin and option premiums are below 10% of assets or if investors are “qualified eligible participants.”

A “qualified eligible participant” generally includes an individual with securities and investments valued at $2,000,000 or one who, within the prior six months, had at least $200,000 in exchange-specified initial margin and option premiums with a futures commission merchant.


Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)

Investments from benefit plan investors, such as retirement and Keogh accounts, into a fund managed by a fund manager are subject to ERISA regulations. If these investments reach or exceed 25% of the fund’s aggregate equity, the fund manager becomes a “plan fiduciary” under ERISA.

As a fiduciary, the manager faces restrictions on transactions that may pose a conflict of interest with benefit plan investors. To avoid this status, the fund manager must calculate the percentage of assets from benefit plan investors during each investment or withdrawal.

The legal team at Jacko Law Group works with clients who are considering or are in the process of a formation and may need legal and regulatory compliance counsel to optimize their efforts and protect their business. If you have a private fund matter or other compliance questions, please call 619.298.2880 or email [email protected].

Author: JLG works extensively with investment advisers, broker-dealers, investment companies, private equity and hedge funds, banks and corporate clients on securities and corporate counsel matters. For more information, please visit https://jackolg.com/.

The information contained in this article may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. This email is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Inadvertent disclosure of the contents of this article to unintended recipients is not intended to and does not constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protections.

The Risk Management Tip is published solely based off the interests and relationship between the clients and friends of the Jacko Law Group P.C. (“JLG”) and should in no way be construed as legal advice. The opinions shared in the publication reflect those of the authors, and not necessarily the views of JLG. For more specific information or recent industry developments or particular situations, you should seek legal opinion or counsel.

You hereby are notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this message and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. These materials may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some jurisdictions.

About the author

Jacko Law Group provides tailored legal services and effective strategies for success, delivering exemplary solutions to complex legal and regulatory challenges to ensure that both business efforts and compliance obligations are satisfied.

Related Insights

Posted on Google Google
Alan Markfeld profile picture
Alan Markfeld
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Dharmi is an excellent securities lawyer who understands the law as it pertains to these cases. She is extremely proactive and represents her clients well. I highly recommend Jacko and Dharmi.
Posted on Google Google
Danielle Martin profile picture
Danielle Martin
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I’ve had the privilege of working closely with this firm in my role as Chief Compliance Officer and I can confidently say they are an exceptional compliance partner. Their depth of experience is immediately evidentand they bring a level of practical knowledge. What I truly enjoy is their ability to translate complex regulatory requirements into plain English, often using real, everyday examples that make implementation far more manageable. They are also incredibly responsive and reliable. In a field where timing matters, their prompt communication and thoughtful guidance have been invaluable. If you’re looking for a compliance attorney who combines expertise, clarity, and professionalism, I highly recommend them.
Posted on Google Google
Curt Rocca profile picture
Curt Rocca
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Michelle and the team at Jacko Law Group have helped guide through a variety of critical circumstances as we ventured through the uncharted and unfamiliar territory of becoming and successfully operating as an RIA. I have particularly appreciated Michelle's personal involvement and genuine caring about us and our organization. She has been responsive and her counsel has been consistently on-point and helpful. She artfully guided us through our initial filing process and first SEC exam process - which went very well. Very grateful to Michelle and her team.
Posted on Google Google
Nicholas Di Paolo profile picture
Nicholas Di Paolo
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Michelle and her team were excellent to work with, front to back. They helped me to understand the challenges ahead and were always proactive in their consultation through every step of my transition. JLG truly know the wealth management industry very well and did a great job of understanding the challenges unique to my business. Without them, I can confidently say I would not have felt as comfortable through the transition as I did. Fortunately, that's not something that stops there - Michelle and her team have kept in touch to ensure that I'm on top of certain administrative issues, trends, and simply showing me that they care about my business and success. I look forward to continuing to work with them for many years to come.
Posted on Google Google
Margery Neis profile picture
Margery Neis
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Dharmi Mehta was extremely helpful when my business partner and I transitioned to a new RIA firm. She and her staff were all very professional. Her guidance during our transition was invaluable. I highly recommend Dharmi and Jacko Law Group.
Posted on Google Google
Joseph Burwell profile picture
Joseph Burwell
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Dharmi and Amandeep were a delight to work with. They assisted me with a claim and stuck with me the entire way through. Dharmi's advice was invaluable, and I was most impressed by her clear and professional communication. From beginning-to-end, both Dharmi and Amandeep kept me well informed. Their entire team are proud of their work and rightfully so. Thank you!
Posted on Google Google
Faruk Jaffer profile picture
Faruk Jaffer
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
My mentor once told me that a good attorney is worth their weight in gold — and that couldn't be more true of Michelle and Amanda. Their expertise, professionalism, and responsiveness were top notch every step of the way. It's rare to find legal partners who are not only sharp and thorough, but also genuinely invested in your success. I’m grateful for their guidance and highly recommend them to anyone seeking trusted legal counsel.
Posted on Google Google
everistus etafo profile picture
everistus etafo
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
It is my great Privilege to share my Review of what Atty Dharmi Mehta of Jacko Law Group did for me and by extension for my family. From the first time complimentary conversation we had having spoken to several other Lawyers ,l knew she was the right person for the Job .Because of her background as a former RR ,she was professional,kind, Empathetic,listened and was focused on fighting for me. From a potential of been terminated with cause ,l was able to walk away with a clean U5 with a validation that l did nothing wrong except what was in the best Interest of my clients. I hope nobody ever has to go through what l have Experienced, but if you do ,you want Dharmi Mehta beside you .Rest assured your service Deserve 10 stars but this forum only allows 5. Me and my family are forever grateful and will make sure that any RR who needs an advocate will know about you . Everistus Etafo
Posted on Google Google
Karen Althaus profile picture
Karen Althaus
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I have worked with Jacko Law Group for 2 different business situations that necessitated an attorney. In both cases, the team was very thorough & competent. Their attention to our situation and the extra effort they put into our case(s) was very much appreciated. I would highly recommend Jacko Law Group!