• the investment objective and goals of the fund;
• fund costs, including disclosures of sales charge
breakpoints and portfolio turnover rates;
• the main investment strategies and risks of the
fund, as well as performance bar charts, which
would be unchanged from current requirements;
• the top 10 portfolio holdings of the fund;
• brief disclosure about the fund’s investment
advisers;
• brief purchase, sale, and tax information; and
• information about broker compensation and
Under the terms of his settlement with the Commission,
the portfolio manager was ordered to cease and
desist from fraudulent and deceptive trading activity,
barred from associating with any investment adviser
and prohibited from serving or acting as an employee,
officer, director, investment adviser or depositor of,
or principal underwriter for, a registered investment
company or the affiliates of any such investment
adviser, depositor or principal underwriter. He is
required to pay a profit disgorgement of about $64,000,
interest of approximately $11,000 and a civil monetary
penalty of $100,000 to the United States Treasury.
potential conflicts.
Funds would be required to provide the Summary
Prospectus to shareholders once a year.
Investment Management and
financial MARKETS Group
Cameron S. Avery
312-807-4302
cavery@bellboyd.com
Andrew T. Pfau
312-807-4386
apfau@bellboyd.com
Kevin R. Bettsteller
312-807-4442
kbettsteller@bellboyd.com
Paulita A. Pike
312-781-6027
ppike@bellboyd.com
Paul H. Dykstra
312-781-6029
pdykstra@bellboyd.com
Eric S. Purple
202-955-7081
epurple@bellboyd.com
Jennifer C. Esquibel
312-807-4262
jesquibel@bellboyd.com
Bruce A. Rosenblum
202-955-7087
brosenblum@bellboyd.com
The SEC is accepting comments to the proposals
through February 28, 2008.
Alan Goldberg
312-807-4227
agoldberg@bellboyd.com
Donald S. Weiss
312-807-4303
dweiss@bellboyd.com
Portfolio Manager Settles with the SEC
Elizabeth H. Hudson
312-807-4376
ehudson@bellboyd.com
Gwendolyn A. Williamson
202-955-7059
gwilliamson@bellboyd.com
Anna Paglia
312-781-7163
apaglia@bellboyd.com
Stacy H. Winick
202-955-7040
swinick@bellboyd.com
Delivery Options
Funds currently must deliver a prospectus to investors
in paper form. The proposed rules would allow
funds to provide investors with the Summary
Prospectus in hard copy while providing the
full prospectus online. Funds would be required
to provide a paper copy or electronic version of the
full prospectus should an investor request it. The
Summary Prospectus would include all the information
listed above.
In late October 2007, a former portfolio manager
at Aeltus Investment Management, LLC (now ING
Investment Management Co.) settled with the SEC
over a case alleging his failure to disclose thousands
of short-term personal trades, including purchases and
sales involving securities held or to be acquired by
the mutual funds he managed. The SEC also claimed
that the portfolio manager intentionally concealed his
personal trading activity from Aeltus and the funds he
managed by submitting fraudulent annual and quarterly
reports and certifications that contained various
misrepresentations and omissions.
Alicia A. Perla
312-807-4318
aperla@bellboyd.com
Gwen C. Cooney • Paralegal • 312-558-7826 gcooney@
bellboyd.com
© 2008 Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP. All rights reserved.
A service to our clients.
February 2008
Inside This Issue
Highlights from the
ICI’s 2007 Securities
Law Developments
Conference - page 2
ICI Recommends to
Treasury Department
Certain Changes
to Mutual Fund
Regulations - page 3
SEC Proposes
New Rules
Permitting Summary
Prospectus - page 3
Portfolio Manager
Settles with the SEC page 4
Donohue Addresses Division’s Accomplishments in 2007 and Goals
for 2008
At the Investment Company Institute’s 2007 Securities Law Developments
Conference on December 6, 2007, Andrew “Buddy” Donohue, Director of the SEC’s
Division of Investment Management, spoke about what he perceived to be the
Division’s achievements in 2007 and outlined the Division’s priorities for 2008.
Summary Prospectus Proposal
Mr. Donohue began by discussing the Division’s proposal for fund companies to
use “summary” prospectuses, stating that the summary prospectus proposal
“would essentially revolutionize the mutual fund disclosure regime.” The
goal of the proposed summary prospectus, Mr. Donohue noted, is to “communicate
key information to fund investors in a streamlined format, with the full prospectus
and statement of additional information available on line or in paper upon request.”
Mr. Donohue stated that the proposal is a “win-win for fund investors” because the
summary prospectus would “result in funds providing investors with easier to
digest information in a more user-friendly format. It also should prove to be
cost-effective.”
Mr. Donohue noted that the comment period for the summary prospectus proposal
ends on February 28, 2008, and the SEC “is seeking investor input about what
improvements would make the summary prospectus easier to read and understand,
and what key information investors would like to see included.”
Mutual Fund Interactive Data
Mr. Donohue also noted the 2007 launch of the SEC’s “voluntary filing program
that enables mutual funds to file the risk/return summaries from their current
prospectuses in an interactive data format.” Mr. Donohue “applauded” those
funds participating in the voluntary program and encouraged more to “follow their
example.” He noted that “interactive data may in the future provide a critical
tool for potentially easing the reporting burden on mutual funds while at the
same time making the information that funds do report easier to use for fund
investors and regulators alike.”
Exemptive Applications Review
IN TOUCH. IN SYNC. INVOLVED.
www.bellboyd.com
Investment Management Update
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
t. 312-372-1121
f. 312-827-8000
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
t. 202-466-6300
f. 202-463-0678
Investment Management Update is published by Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP for clients and friends of the firm and is for information only. It is not a substitute for legal advice or
individual analysis of a particular legal matter. Readers should not act without seeking professional legal counsel. Transmission and receipt of this publication does not create
an attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Donohue then discussed the Division’s exemptive applications review process.
While noting the goal to double the number of substantive notices for exemption
issued in fiscal year 2007 over fiscal year 2006 had not been met, he stated that by
“the end of our fiscal year on September 30, the Division had issued 81 substantive
notices, an 84% increase over the prior fiscal year.”
Director Outreach
Mr. Donohue also discussed meetings with fund boards, stating the meetings “reaffirmed the importance of [fund boards’] role and . . . the commitment that
conscientious fund directors bring to the boardroom.” Mr. Donohue stated that
Investment Management Update
• “12b-1 factors fund boards . . . consider are
the Division would “develop recommendations for
possible rule amendments or additional guidance
. . . not to make fund directors’ jobs easier, but to
enable directors to be more effective and to more
appropriately tailor their duties.”
out of date [and] do not conform to today’s
economic realities.”
• “Fund investors are precluded from the benefits
that could result from competition on sales
loads.” Mr. Donohue stated that the Division is
examining “options to encourage and enable
competition on sales loads for the benefit of
fund investors.”
Rule 12b-1
In discussing the Division’s initiatives for 2008,
Mr. Donohue focused on two priorities: Rule 12b-1 and
books and records reform. With respect to Rule 12b‑1,
he stated: “Despite the benefits that many believe
have come from Rule 12b-1, many observers —
including me — believe that the rule in its current form
is broken, or at least is not functioning as it should.”
Mr. Donohue set forth six areas of concern relating
to Rule 12b-1. He noted that:
Recordkeeping Reform
Mr. Donohue stated that “the investment adviser and
investment company books and records regimes have
been out of date for years, if not decades. There is a
tremendous need to modernize fund and adviser
recordkeeping requirements.” Noting that during
2007 his staff had visited advisory firms “to obtain a
better sense of how they maintain their records and
make use of the technologies available to them,” he
indicated that in 2008 “the staff will be putting what was
learned to use as they develop a recommendation for
books and records reform.”
• “About half of the dollar amount of 12b-1
fees collected . . . represents the functional
equivalent of an asset-based sales
charge . . . . In addition to disclosure from their
financial advisor, . . . investors should be clearly
informed that they are paying a sales charge . .
. . in the fund’s prospectus and in the confirm an
investor receives.”
Highlights from the ICI’s 2007 Securities Law
Developments Conference
• With respect to Class A, B and C fund shares,
“in regard to distribution fees, sales charges
and conversion rights, there generally
is no necessary relationship among the
three classes, which can create confusion
and misunderstanding for investors, at a
minimum, and can even lead to potential
unfairness for fund investors.”
The Division of Investment Management’s
Accomplishments and Priorities. Please see the
accompanying article for a summary of the remarks of
Andrew “Buddy” Donohue, Director of the Division of
Investment Management.
Money Market Funds: Avoiding Enforcement
Action in a Volatile Market. Robert Plaze, Associate
Director of the Division of Investment Management,
detailed first the obligations of money market funds
and their boards under Rule 2a-7.
• While “the NASD rule that regulates the charging
of sales loads and 12b-1 fees essentially
focuses on whether a fund or a particular class
of a fund’s shares is overpaying the fund’s
distributor . . . it would seem more appropriate
to focus on whether individual investors are
paying more than the maximum sales loads
and 12b-1 fees.”
Mr. Plaze said that money market funds and their
advisers could seek emergency no-action relief in
dealing with downgraded, defaulted and similarly
distressed portfolio securities.
• There was “the possibility of negative economic
consequences to fund investors from the
reform of Rule 12b-1.” Mr. Donohue stated
that the Division “will seek to minimize the
tax impact on individual investors of any
recommendation” and also “be mindful of
potential operational issues and the costs of
making significant systems changes.”
The Commission’s Inspection Process. Panelists
from across the industry provided an overview of
the Commission’s inspection process, including both
routine inspections and those involving, among other
matters, market timing and/or late trading, revenue
sharing and “shelf space” arrangements, conflicts of
interest, improper/undisclosed fees and commissions,
2
both U.S. and non-U.S. investors alike.” The
ICI letter notes the global popularity of European
UCITS and highlights prior recommendations of the
SEC, commentators and others that “the Investment
Company Act should be expanded to permit a fourth
type of U.S. registered investment company, including
a type that is generally modeled on highly successful
fund structures found outside the United States.”
The majority of the examples cited by the ICI are
investment vehicles not overseen by independent
boards. While the ICI letter does not explicitly reject
the use of independent boards, it states that under
current regulation, U.S. investment companies “have
a complex structure tailored specifically to U.S. law,
including that the investment company must be
organized as a corporate entity separate and apart
from the money manager that sponsors it. In
contrast, the laws in many other jurisdictions treat
an investment company simply as the mechanism
through which a money manager offers its services
to investors.” Some have asserted that the practical
outcome of the ICI’s recommendations would be an
investment company without an independent board.
In response, Paul Schott Stevens, President &
CEO of the ICI, circulated a letter to fund directors
noting, in part, the ICI’s belief that any proposed
new investment vehicle model “must provide
many of the same core Investment Company Act
protections that characterize current forms of
U.S.-registered investment companies. . . . [T]he
fact that a fund is not organized as a corporation
does not preclude a role for some independent
third party performing oversight on behalf of
shareholders, comparable to the role performed by
mutual fund independent directors.”
improper gifts and gratuities, soft dollar practices and
false and misleading statements and sales literature.
The panelists offered the following advice to funds and
advisers in complying with routine SEC inspections:
• do what you tell the Commission you are going
to do;
• do not backdate documents under any
circumstances;
• show the Commission that policies and
procedures are in line with actual operations;
and
• keep in mind that the Commission is willing to
allow a reasonable time to implement policies
and procedures where they are deemed to be
insufficient.
The panelists also presented a pilot inspection letter
from the Commission’s New York Regional Office,
explaining that such letters would solicit general
information regarding the risks associated with certain
operations of a firm that would allow inspectors to
gauge whether the severity of those risks warranted
the solicitation of additional, more specific information
regarding that operational issue.
Other Topics. Commission officials and other
conference panelists also discussed trends and
important no-action letters regarding derivatives and
other complex investment strategies and practices;
trading and market structure issues, including side-byside management, trade leakage, soft dollars and best
execution practices; and computer privacy and security
breach matters.
SEC Proposes New Rules Permitting
Summary Prospectus
ICI Recommends to Treasury Department
Certain Changes to Mutual Fund
Regulations
As discussed in a previous article, the SEC proposed
two rule amendments in November 2007 relating to the
format and delivery of fund prospectuses. The rules
would change the general layout of the prospectus by
requiring a “Summary Section,” as well as permitting
funds to use a Summary Prospectus.
In late 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department announced
it would be reviewing the regulatory structure affecting
financial institutions. In response, on December 7,
the ICI filed a detailed letter recommending changes
to the regulations applicable to mutual funds. One of
the changes recommended by the ICI was that “U.S.
regulators must encourage and permit innovation
and adopt global standards.” Specifically, the ICI
recommended developing a “new form of U.S.
registered investment company that would be
an attractive, competitive investment option for
Proposed Changes
The SEC’s proposals would require that the
Summary Prospectus contain three to four pages
of key information about the fund, including:
3
Investment Management Update
• “12b-1 factors fund boards . . . consider are
the Division would “develop recommendations for
possible rule amendments or additional guidance
. . . not to make fund directors’ jobs easier, but to
enable directors to be more effective and to more
appropriately tailor their duties.”
out of date [and] do not conform to today’s
economic realities.”
• “Fund investors are precluded from the benefits
that could result from competition on sales
loads.” Mr. Donohue stated that the Division is
examining “options to encourage and enable
competition on sales loads for the benefit of
fund investors.”
Rule 12b-1
In discussing the Division’s initiatives for 2008,
Mr. Donohue focused on two priorities: Rule 12b-1 and
books and records reform. With respect to Rule 12b‑1,
he stated: “Despite the benefits that many believe
have come from Rule 12b-1, many observers —
including me — believe that the rule in its current form
is broken, or at least is not functioning as it should.”
Mr. Donohue set forth six areas of concern relating
to Rule 12b-1. He noted that:
Recordkeeping Reform
Mr. Donohue stated that “the investment adviser and
investment company books and records regimes have
been out of date for years, if not decades. There is a
tremendous need to modernize fund and adviser
recordkeeping requirements.” Noting that during
2007 his staff had visited advisory firms “to obtain a
better sense of how they maintain their records and
make use of the technologies available to them,” he
indicated that in 2008 “the staff will be putting what was
learned to use as they develop a recommendation for
books and records reform.”
• “About half of the dollar amount of 12b-1
fees collected . . . represents the functional
equivalent of an asset-based sales
charge . . . . In addition to disclosure from their
financial advisor, . . . investors should be clearly
informed that they are paying a sales charge . .
. . in the fund’s prospectus and in the confirm an
investor receives.”
Highlights from the ICI’s 2007 Securities Law
Developments Conference
• With respect to Class A, B and C fund shares,
“in regard to distribution fees, sales charges
and conversion rights, there generally
is no necessary relationship among the
three classes, which can create confusion
and misunderstanding for investors, at a
minimum, and can even lead to potential
unfairness for fund investors.”
The Division of Investment Management’s
Accomplishments and Priorities. Please see the
accompanying article for a summary of the remarks of
Andrew “Buddy” Donohue, Director of the Division of
Investment Management.
Money Market Funds: Avoiding Enforcement
Action in a Volatile Market. Robert Plaze, Associate
Director of the Division of Investment Management,
detailed first the obligations of money market funds
and their boards under Rule 2a-7.
• While “the NASD rule that regulates the charging
of sales loads and 12b-1 fees essentially
focuses on whether a fund or a particular class
of a fund’s shares is overpaying the fund’s
distributor . . . it would seem more appropriate
to focus on whether individual investors are
paying more than the maximum sales loads
and 12b-1 fees.”
Mr. Plaze said that money market funds and their
advisers could seek emergency no-action relief in
dealing with downgraded, defaulted and similarly
distressed portfolio securities.
• There was “the possibility of negative economic
consequences to fund investors from the
reform of Rule 12b-1.” Mr. Donohue stated
that the Division “will seek to minimize the
tax impact on individual investors of any
recommendation” and also “be mindful of
potential operational issues and the costs of
making significant systems changes.”
The Commission’s Inspection Process. Panelists
from across the industry provided an overview of
the Commission’s inspection process, including both
routine inspections and those involving, among other
matters, market timing and/or late trading, revenue
sharing and “shelf space” arrangements, conflicts of
interest, improper/undisclosed fees and commissions,
2
both U.S. and non-U.S. investors alike.” The
ICI letter notes the global popularity of European
UCITS and highlights prior recommendations of the
SEC, commentators and others that “the Investment
Company Act should be expanded to permit a fourth
type of U.S. registered investment company, including
a type that is generally modeled on highly successful
fund structures found outside the United States.”
The majority of the examples cited by the ICI are
investment vehicles not overseen by independent
boards. While the ICI letter does not explicitly reject
the use of independent boards, it states that under
current regulation, U.S. investment companies “have
a complex structure tailored specifically to U.S. law,
including that the investment company must be
organized as a corporate entity separate and apart
from the money manager that sponsors it. In
contrast, the laws in many other jurisdictions treat
an investment company simply as the mechanism
through which a money manager offers its services
to investors.” Some have asserted that the practical
outcome of the ICI’s recommendations would be an
investment company without an independent board.
In response, Paul Schott Stevens, President and
CEO of the ICI, circulated a letter to fund directors
noting, in part, the ICI’s belief that any proposed
new investment vehicle model “must provide
many of the same core Investment Company Act
protections that characterize current forms of
U.S.-registered investment companies. . . . [T]he
fact that a fund is not organized as a corporation
does not preclude a role for some independent
third party performing oversight on behalf of
shareholders, comparable to the role performed by
mutual fund independent directors.”
improper gifts and gratuities, soft dollar practices and
false and misleading statements and sales literature.
The panelists offered the following advice to funds and
advisers in complying with routine SEC inspections:
• do what you tell the Commission you are going
to do;
• do not backdate documents under any
circumstances;
• show the Commission that policies and
procedures are in line with actual operations;
and
• keep in mind that the Commission is willing to
allow a reasonable time to implement policies
and procedures where they are deemed to be
insufficient.
The panelists also presented a pilot inspection letter
from the Commission’s New York Regional Office,
explaining that such letters would solicit general
information regarding the risks associated with certain
operations of a firm that would allow inspectors to
gauge whether the severity of those risks warranted
the solicitation of additional, more specific information
regarding that operational issue.
Other Topics. Commission officials and other
conference panelists also discussed trends and
important no-action letters regarding derivatives and
other complex investment strategies and practices;
trading and market structure issues, including side-byside management, trade leakage, soft dollars and best
execution practices; and computer privacy and security
breach matters.
SEC Proposes New Rules Permitting
Summary Prospectus
ICI Recommends to Treasury Department
Certain Changes to Mutual Fund
Regulations
As discussed in a previous article, the SEC proposed
two rule amendments in November 2007 relating to the
format and delivery of fund prospectuses. The rules
would change the general layout of the prospectus by
requiring a “Summary Section,” as well as permitting
funds to use a Summary Prospectus.
In late 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department announced
it would be reviewing the regulatory structure affecting
financial institutions. In response, on December 7,
the ICI filed a detailed letter recommending changes
to the regulations applicable to mutual funds. One of
the changes recommended by the ICI was that “U.S.
regulators must encourage and permit innovation
and adopt global standards.” Specifically, the ICI
recommended developing a “new form of U.S.
registered investment company that would be
an attractive, competitive investment option for
Proposed Changes
The SEC’s proposals would require that the
Summary Prospectus contain three to four pages
of key information about the fund, including:
3
• the investment objective and goals of the fund;
• fund costs, including disclosures of sales charge
breakpoints and portfolio turnover rates;
• the main investment strategies and risks of the
fund, as well as performance bar charts, which
would be unchanged from current requirements;
• the top 10 portfolio holdings of the fund;
• brief disclosure about the fund’s investment
advisers;
• brief purchase, sale, and tax information; and
• information about broker compensation and
Under the terms of his settlement with the Commission,
the portfolio manager was ordered to cease and
desist from fraudulent and deceptive trading activity,
barred from associating with any investment adviser
and prohibited from serving or acting as an employee,
officer, director, investment adviser or depositor of,
or principal underwriter for, a registered investment
company or the affiliates of any such investment
adviser, depositor or principal underwriter. He is
required to pay a profit disgorgement of about $64,000,
interest of approximately $11,000 and a civil monetary
penalty of $100,000 to the United States Treasury.
potential conflicts.
Funds would be required to provide the Summary
Prospectus to shareholders once a year.
Investment Management and
financial MARKETS Group
Cameron S. Avery
312-807-4302
cavery@bellboyd.com
Andrew T. Pfau
312-807-4386
apfau@bellboyd.com
Kevin R. Bettsteller
312-807-4442
kbettsteller@bellboyd.com
Paulita A. Pike
312-781-6027
ppike@bellboyd.com
Paul H. Dykstra
312-781-6029
pdykstra@bellboyd.com
Eric S. Purple
202-955-7081
epurple@bellboyd.com
Jennifer C. Esquibel
312-807-4262
jesquibel@bellboyd.com
Bruce A. Rosenblum
202-955-7087
brosenblum@bellboyd.com
The SEC is accepting comments to the proposals
through February 28, 2008.
Alan Goldberg
312-807-4227
agoldberg@bellboyd.com
Donald S. Weiss
312-807-4303
dweiss@bellboyd.com
Portfolio Manager Settles with the SEC
Elizabeth H. Hudson
312-807-4376
ehudson@bellboyd.com
Gwendolyn A. Williamson
202-955-7059
gwilliamson@bellboyd.com
Anna Paglia
312-781-7163
apaglia@bellboyd.com
Stacy H. Winick
202-955-7040
swinick@bellboyd.com
Delivery Options
Funds currently must deliver a prospectus to investors
in paper form. The proposed rules would allow
funds to provide investors with the Summary
Prospectus in hard copy while providing the
full prospectus online. Funds would be required
to provide a paper copy or electronic version of the
full prospectus should an investor request it. The
Summary Prospectus would include all the information
listed above.
In late October 2007, a former portfolio manager
at Aeltus Investment Management, LLC (now ING
Investment Management Co.) settled with the SEC
over a case alleging his failure to disclose thousands
of short-term personal trades, including purchases and
sales involving securities held or to be acquired by
the mutual funds he managed. The SEC also claimed
that the portfolio manager intentionally concealed his
personal trading activity from Aeltus and the funds he
managed by submitting fraudulent annual and quarterly
reports and certifications that contained various
misrepresentations and omissions.
Alicia A. Perla
312-807-4318
aperla@bellboyd.com
Gwen C. Cooney • Paralegal • 312-558-7826 gcooney@
bellboyd.com
© 2008 Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP. All rights reserved.
A service to our clients.
February 2008
Inside This Issue
Highlights from the
ICI’s 2007 Securities
Law Developments
Conference - page 2
ICI Recommends to
Treasury Department
Certain Changes
to Mutual Fund
Regulations - page 3
SEC Proposes
New Rules
Permitting Summary
Prospectus - page 3
Portfolio Manager
Settles with the SEC page 4
Donohue Addresses Division’s Accomplishments in 2007 and Goals
for 2008
At the Investment Company Institute’s 2007 Securities Law Developments
Conference on December 6, 2007, Andrew “Buddy” Donohue, Director of the SEC’s
Division of Investment Management, spoke about what he perceived to be the
Division’s achievements in 2007 and outlined the Division’s priorities for 2008.
Summary Prospectus Proposal
Mr. Donohue began by discussing the Division’s proposal for fund companies to
use “summary” prospectuses, stating that the summary prospectus proposal
“would essentially revolutionize the mutual fund disclosure regime.” The
goal of the proposed summary prospectus, Mr. Donohue noted, is to “communicate
key information to fund investors in a streamlined format, with the full prospectus
and statement of additional information available on line or in paper upon request.”
Mr. Donohue stated that the proposal is a “win-win for fund investors” because the
summary prospectus would “result in funds providing investors with easier to
digest information in a more user-friendly format. It also should prove to be
cost-effective.”
Mr. Donohue noted that the comment period for the summary prospectus proposal
ends on February 28, 2008, and the SEC “is seeking investor input about what
improvements would make the summary prospectus easier to read and understand,
and what key information investors would like to see included.”
Mutual Fund Interactive Data
Mr. Donohue also noted the 2007 launch of the SEC’s “voluntary filing program
that enables mutual funds to file the risk/return summaries from their current
prospectuses in an interactive data format.” Mr. Donohue “applauded” those
funds participating in the voluntary program and encouraged more to “follow their
example.” He noted that “interactive data may in the future provide a critical
tool for potentially easing the reporting burden on mutual funds while at the
same time making the information that funds do report easier to use for fund
investors and regulators alike.”
Exemptive Applications Review
IN TOUCH. IN SYNC. INVOLVED.
www.bellboyd.com
Investment Management Update
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
t. 312-372-1121
f. 312-827-8000
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
t. 202-466-6300
f. 202-463-0678
Investment Management Update is published by Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP for clients and friends of the firm and is for information only. It is not a substitute for legal advice or
individual analysis of a particular legal matter. Readers should not act without seeking professional legal counsel. Transmission and receipt of this publication does not create
an attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Donohue then discussed the Division’s exemptive applications review process.
While noting the goal to double the number of substantive notices for exemption
issued in fiscal year 2007 over fiscal year 2006 had not been met, he stated that by
“the end of our fiscal year on September 30, the Division had issued 81 substantive
notices, an 84% increase over the prior fiscal year.”
Director Outreach
Mr. Donohue also discussed meetings with fund boards, stating the meetings “reaffirmed the importance of [fund boards’] role and . . . the commitment that
conscientious fund directors bring to the boardroom.” Mr. Donohue stated that