UPDATE: Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.09.09
On February 2, 2009, we issued a "Financial Services Alert" reporting on the Hedge Fund Transparency Act ("HFTA") introduced by Senators Grassley and Levin. As explained, the HFTA, if enacted, will require hedge funds and other private investment funds, such as private equity funds and venture capital funds, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission as "investment companies" within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Since the legislation was proposed at the end of January, some have raised concern that the HFTA would require private investment funds to disclose the names and addresses of all fund investors. On February 5, 2009, Senator Levin issued a press release explicitly rejecting that interpretation of the HFTA.
Senator Levin clarified that "the bill to regulate hedge funds does not require the disclosure of hedge funds who merely invest in the fund." Rather, Senator Levin stated: "the bill requires disclosure of a hedge fund's beneficial owners, who profit from the fees generated in operating the fund." According to Senator Levin, "any interpretation or characterization of our bill as requiring hedge funds to disclose their clients' names is incorrect."
The confusion likely stems from the current language in the proposed legislation that requires disclosure to the SEC of the identity of "each natural person who is a beneficial owner of the investment company." To ensure clarity and allay the expressed concerns, Senators Grassley and Levin may need to re-write this requirement so there is no doubt as to what is meant by beneficial ownership of the investment company.
We will continue to monitor this proposed legislation and provide updates as needed.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
