Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 APRIL 2014

SEC Correction: Reinstating An Exception To An Exception To An Exception

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

No one could be blamed for having difficulty understanding the intricacies of the rules under Section 17(d) of the Investment Company Act.

United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law

No one could be blamed for having difficulty understanding the intricacies of the rules under Section 17(d) of the Investment Company Act, the statute that prohibits "joint transactions" without an SEC order. At the end of 2013, the SEC may have helped reduce some of the anxiety when it quietly reinstated a part of an obscure rule that was missing from the Federal Register since 2003.

Now follow closely: Rule 17d-1(d) under the 1940 Act provides a laundry list of exceptions to the requirement for obtaining an order. Researchers checking the official version of the law would find that the exception contained in Rule 17d-1(d)(6) included an exception to the exception that is difficult, if not impossible, to understand, with a reference to another section that didn't exist. It turns out that when the SEC amended the rule in 2003, the adopting release incorrectly included a cross-reference to a section that was renumbered, and inadvertently omitted three paragraphs (i.e.,

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from