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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
