Recent E.U. regulations and comments from the European Securities and Markets Authority have put reverse solicitation firmly in the spotlight, and it may be timely for fund managers to reassess the costs and benefits of using that approach to distribution in Europe. There are a host of alternative approaches that non‑E.U. alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) can pursue to avoid full registration under the E.U.’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, but each has its own drawbacks and considerations. IFI Global (IFI) recently hosted a webinar discussing the various pressures on, and risks associated with, reverse solicitation and other techniques for non‑E.U. AIFMs to distribute in Europe, including through distribution intermediaries (e.g., placement agents and management companies), under national private placement regimes and others. The panel was moderated by IFI’s CEO, Simon Osborn, and featured Conrad C. Axelrod, partner at King & Spalding; Emily Haithwaite, group partner at Ogier; Simon Firth, partner at Arnold & Porter; and Philip A. Pirecki, business development lead for Americas at Jersey Finance. This article summarizes relevant takeaways from the webinar. See “IFI Global Survey Identifies Trends in Offshore Domiciliation and Fund Structuring Among U.S. Managers” (Nov. 2, 2021).