Reconciling Disparate U.S. and U.K. Requirements for Preparing and Delivering Non‑Standard Track Records (Part Two of Two)

Historically, the SEC has expressed concerns about the use of hypothetical performance and other non-standard track records by sponsors. Although that has changed with the introduction of the SEC’s new marketing rule under Rule 206(4)‑1 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the road ahead is not smooth. Sponsors will remain subject to stringent rules about how and when non-standard track records can be used. Those obstacles become doubly daunting for any U.S. sponsors forced to simultaneously comply with the U.K.’s marketing regime in light of certain subtle, but meaningful, differences between the two regimes’ requirements. The Alternative Investment Management Association hosted a webinar featuring K&L Gates partners Michael W. McGrath and Michelle Moran about marketing issues relevant to managers subject to both U.S. and U.K. marketing rules. This second article in a two-part series outlines similarities and differences in the treatment of non-standard track records (e.g., hypothetical performance, predecessor performance, etc.) across the jurisdictions. The first article reviewed the key differences between the U.S. and U.K. marketing regimes, and identified measures advisers can take to reconcile each regime’s requirements. See “Takeaways in the SEC Risk Alert on Performance Advertising, Hedge Clauses and Side Letter Management (Part One of Two)” (Mar. 22, 2022); and “Impact of the New Marketing Rule: Disclosures in Non‑Standard Calculations and Requirements When Using Promoters (Part Two of Two)” (Mar. 30, 2021).

To read the full article

Continue reading your article with a PELR subscription.