米国外の公募ファンド及びジョイント・ベンチャーに対するボルカー・ルール

Tokyo Capital Markets Newsletter
和仁亮裕
藤平克彦
内田光俊
合田久輝
細川兼嗣
大間知麗子
2015 年 6 月 19 日
June 19, 2015
New Volcker Rule Guidance on Foreign
Public Funds and Joint Ventures
By Jay G. Baris, Henry M. Fields,
Diana E. Whitaker
宇波洋介
米国外の公募ファンド及びジョイント・ベンチャーに対
するボルカー・ルールの適用に関する新しい指針に
ついて
執筆者：ジェイ G. バリス、ヘンリー M. フィールズ、
ダイアナ E. ウィテカー
和訳監修及びサマリー：藤平克彦
サマリー：
2015 年 6 月 12 日、米当局はボルカー・ルールに関する追加の Q&A（「FAQ」）を公表した。
1. FAQ 第 14 項は、米国外の公募ファンドにつき、いかなる場合に当該ファンドが「銀行等」により「支配」されているとみなさ
れるかの基準を示すものである。
問題の所在
米国外の公募ファンドは、原則としてボルカー・ルールにより銀行等が投資したりスポンサーになったりすることを禁じら
れる「カバード・ファンド」に該当しない。しかしながら、銀行等がこのようなファンドを「支配」しているとみなされると、当該
ファンドは銀行等の関連会社等とみなされ、当該ファンドによる自己勘定取引や「カバード・ファンド」への投資等が、禁止
又は制限されることになる。
どのような場合に銀行等が米国外の公募ファンドを支配しているとみなされるかについては、明確な基準が示されていな
かったため、米国内の登録済投資会社に関する基準などから類推するしかなかったが、制度の違い等からかかる基準を
そのまま適用しがたい面があり、実務上問題となっていた。
新たに示された指針
銀行等が米国外の公募ファンドに対して投資助言、商品取引助言、管理その他のサービスを提供している場合であって
も、銀行等が（適用あるシード投資期間の経過後において）当該米国外の公募ファンドの議決権の 25%未満のみを保
有又はコントロールしているにすぎないときには、当該ファンドは銀行等によって支配されているとはみなされない。
残された課題
銀行等が米国外の公募ファンドの議決権の 25%以上を保有又はコントロールしている場合には、上記指針に依拠する
ことができない。したがって、「支配」の要件に該当しうる公募ファンドが存在する場合には、引き続き議決権保有割合の
引き下げ、ファンド保有資産の見直し等の対応策を検討する必要がある。
2. FAQ 第 15 項は、「カバード・ファンド」の定義から除外されている「ジョイント・ベンチャー」に該当するための要件に関わるも
のである。
FAQ において、米当局はジョイント・ベンチャーの範囲につき、ボルカー･ルールの該当規定の文言を限定的に解釈する意
向を示しているため、将来処分する予定の有価証券に投資し保有するジョイント・ベンチャーについては、留意が必要であ
る。
© 2015 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com | Attorney Advertising
Client Alert
I. FOREIGN PUBLIC FUNDS
I．米国外の公募ファンド
一定の要件を充たす米国外の公募ファンドは、ボルカー・ル
Foreign public funds that meet specified criteria are not
“covered funds” under the Volcker Rule.
[1]
ールにおける「カバード・ファンド（＝［規制の］対象ファンド）」
However, a
foreign public fund “controlled” by a banking entity is an
affiliated banking entity,
[2]
には該当しない。
[1]
しかし、米国外の公募ファンドが銀行等
（“banking entity”）による「支配」（control）を受ける場合に
with the unhappy result that
the fund’s investments and trading activities are subject
は、当該ファンドは、銀行等の関連会社等（“affiliated
to the Volcker Rule’s prohibitions on proprietary trading
banking entity”）にあたるとみなされることになり、その結
and investment in covered funds. The question of when
果、当該ファンドによる投資及び取引は、ボルカー・ルール
a banking entity controls a foreign fund has been a
により禁止される自己勘定取引（proprietary trading）やカバ
source of uncertainty for sponsors of foreign public
funds.
ード・ファンド投資に該当してしまう。したがって、米国外の公
[2]
募ファンドのスポンサーにとって、当該ファンドが銀行等の
「支配」下にあると解される可能性は、法的な不安定要因と
なっていた。
For guidance on the control issue, foreign public fund
支配の有無を判断するに際して、米国外の公募ファンドのス
sponsors have looked to precedent under the Bank
ポンサーは、銀行持株会社法（Bank Holding Company
Holding Company Act (“BHC Act”). A bank holding
Act – “BHC Act”）に関する先例に依拠してきた。すなわち、
company that serves as an adviser to a registered
登録された投資会社（registered investment company –
investment company (“RIC”)—the U.S. counterpart to a
“RIC”－米国外の公募ファンドに相当するであろう米国法上
foreign public fund—will not be deemed to control a RIC
のファンド）のアドバイザーとして活動する銀行持株会社が、
if it has a limited investment in the RIC (and does not
RIC に対して有限の一定投資のみを行っている場合（かつ、
control the appointment of a majority of the RIC’s board
RIC の取締役会のメンバーの過半数の指名を支配していな
of directors). The Agencies address this issue in the
Preamble to the Volcker Rule:
い場合）には、RIC を支配しているとはみなされないと考えら
れている。規制当局は、ボルカー・ルールのファイナル・ルー
ル前文において、この点に以下のように触れている：
“For example, the [Federal Reserve] Board has
「例えば、銀行持株会社が RIC に対して投資助言等のサー
permitted a bank holding company to own up to
ビスを提供し、両者に一定の数の兼任取締役や兼任役職員
5% of the voting shares of registered investment
が存在する場合であっても、［連邦準備制度］理事会は、銀
company for which the bank holding company
行持株会社が当該 RIC の議決権株式の 5％までを保有す
provides investment advisory, administrative
ることを許容してきており、当該 RIC が銀行持株会社により
and other services, and has a number of director
支配されているとはみなしてきていない。さらに、RIC の投
and officer interlocks, without finding that the
資先が、銀行持株会社が自ら投資可能な対象に限られてい
bank holding company controls the fund. The
る場合には、理事会は、銀行持株会社が RIC の議決権株
Board has also permitted a bank holding
式の 25％未満を保有して類似のサービスを提供することを
company to own less than 25 percent of the
許容してきており、かつ、当該 RIC が銀行持株会社により
[3]
支配されているとはみなしてきていない。」
voting shares of a registered investment
company and provide similar services without
finding that the bank holding company controls
the fund, so long as the fund limits its
investments to those permissible for the holding
[3]
company to make itself.”
However, that precedent has been of questionable value
しかしながら、米国外の公募ファンドは一般に RIC とは異な
for foreign public funds, because they generally have
るガバナンス体制を有するために、この先例が米国外の公
different governance structures than RICs. RICs are
募ファンドに関しても意義を有するかについては、疑問が呈
typically organized as distinct companies with a Board of
されてきた。RIC は、典型的には、その投資助言会社とは別
Directors separate from the RIC’s investment adviser. In
個の法人として組織されており、別個の取締役会を有する。
2
Client Alert
FAQ #14 (published June 12, 2015), the Agencies
規制当局も、ボルカー・ルールに関して良くなされる質問に
recognize that, unlike investment advisers to RICs,
ついての Q&A 集（「FAQ」）第 14 項（2015 年 6 月 12 日に
sponsors of foreign public funds in some jurisdictions
公表）において、一定の国や地域においては、RIC に対する
select a majority of directors or trustees (which under
投資助言会社とは異なり、米国外の公募ファンドのスポンサ
the BHC Act would automatically trigger a control
ーが、取締役や受託者の過半数を選任し（BHC Act のもと
determination), or otherwise control the funds for
ではかかる行為により「支配」が存在するものと自動的にみ
purposes of the BHC Act by contract or through a
なされる）、また、契約により又は支配下にある取締役の着
controlled corporate director.
[4]
任により、BHC Act との関係において当該ファンドが支配を
This has led foreign
[4]
public fund sponsors to conclude that they control a fund
受けている状態にあるという認識が示されている。
このよ
(and therefore the fund is a “banking entity” under the
うな事情のため、米国外の公募ファンドについては、米国外
Volcker Rule) under customary BHC Act standards—or
の公募ファンドのスポンサーが通常の BHC Act の基準に基
at the very least, has led to uncertainty over whether the
づきファンドを支配している（従ってボルカー・ルール上はフ
combination of relationships between a foreign public
ァンドが「銀行等」に該当する。）と自らみなさざるを得なかっ
fund’s sponsor, adviser, trustee and/or administrator,
たか、または少なくとも、ファンドのスポンサー、アドバイザ
and the power of appointment of directors and/or
ー、受託者又は管理者としての地位の兼務、並びに取締役
trustees, result in control of the foreign public fund by
又は受託者を選任する権限の組み合わせによって、そのひ
the banking entity serving in one or more of such roles,
or exercising such powers.
とつ又は複数の役割を担い若しくは権限を行使する銀行等
FAQ #14 addresses this issue by invoking (for Volcker
この問題について、FAQ 第 14 項は、米国外の公募ファンド
Rule purposes only) a control standard based on
が発行する有価証券の保有比率に基づく支配の基準を（ボ
ownership of a foreign public fund’s securities. This
ルカー･ルール適用の関係においてのみ）示して対応してい
guidance recognizes that foreign public funds are
る。同項では、米国外の公募ファンドは、地域の法令に基づ
subject to corporate governance rules under local law,
くコーポレートガバナンス･ルールに服しており、これらのル
which may not be identical to the governance laws that
ールは米国で RIC に適用されるガバナンス法とは異なりう
apply to RICs in the United States. The staffs of the
ることを認めている。そのうえで、銀行等が米国外の公募フ
Agencies “advise” that they will not consider a foreign
ァンドに対して投資助言、商品取引助言、管理その他のサ
public fund to be controlled for Volcker Rule purposes by
ービスを提供していても、銀行等が（適用あるシード投資期
a banking entity that provides investment advisory,
間の経過後において）当該ファンドの議決権証券の 25％
commodity trading advisory, administrative or other
以上を保有し、支配し又は議決権を行使する権利を有する
services to the fund—and therefore the fund will not
場合でない限りは、当該ファンドが銀行等による支配を受
itself be deemed to be a banking entity—so long as the
けているとはみなさない（従って、当該ファンドそのものが銀
banking entity does not own, control or hold the power to
行等とみなされることもない）旨を、規制当局の担当者が「勧
告」している。
が、当該米国外の公募ファンドを支配しているとみなされる
可能性をはらんだままの法的に不安定な状態にあった。
[5]
[6]
vote 25 percent or more of the voting securities of the
foreign public fund (after any applicable seeding
[5] [6]
period ).
II. JOINT VENTURES
II．ジョイント・ベンチャー
The Volcker Rule excludes from the definition of
ボルカー･ルールは、銀行等又はその関連会社と、一つ若し
“covered fund” any joint venture between a banking
くは複数の他の（銀行等の関連会社ではない）当事者との間
entity or one of its affiliates and one or more unaffiliated
persons, provided that the joint venture:
のジョイント・ベンチャーを、当該ジョイント・ベンチャーが以

下の要件を充たすことを条件として、「カバード・ファンド」の
定義から除外している。
is comprised of no more than 10 unaffiliated co-

当該ジョイント・ベンチャーは、10 以下の関連会社
ではない参加者から構成されていること。

当該ジョイント・ベンチャーは、転売又はその他の処
venturers;

is in the business of engaging in activities that
3
Client Alert
are permissible for the banking entity or affiliate,
分を目的として行う有価証券投資以外の、銀行等
other than investing in securities for resale or
又はその関連会社が行える活動に従事するもので
あること。
other disposition; and


is not, and does not hold itself out as being, an
当該ジョイント･ベンチャーは、転売又はその他の処
entity or arrangement that raises money from
分を目的として行う有価証券投資を主たる目的とし
investors primarily for the purpose of investing in
て投資家から資金を調達する組織若しくは仕組み
securities for resale or other disposition or
ではなく、かつ対外的にそのような組織又は仕組み
[7]
である旨を表示していないこと。
otherwise trading in securities.
[7]
The joint venture exemption was designed to allow
ジョイント・ベンチャーに関する除外規定は、銀行等が、限ら
banking entities to conduct their business and
れた数の参加者と共同で事業を行えるように設けられてい
operations with a limited number of co-venturers. In FAQ
た。規制当局は、2015 年 6 月 12 日に公表された FAQ 第
#15 (published June 12, 2015),
[8]
[8]
15 項において、ジョイント・ベンチャーに関する除外規定の
the Agencies have
carefully circumscribed the joint venture exclusion, likely
適用範囲を注意深く限定した。その範囲は、上で引用した文
more narrowly than otherwise seemed permissible
理やボルカー･ルール前文の記載から許容されるであろうと
under the text cited above and in the Preamble. Under
思われた範囲よりも狭いようにも見受けられる。すなわち、
FAQ #15 the joint venture exclusion will not be met by
FAQ 第 15 項のもとでは、少数の投資家から主として有価
an issuer that raises money from a small number of
証券に投資する目的で資金を調達する発行体は、「有価証
investors primarily for the purpose of investing in
券が頻繁に転売されることが意図される場合、より長い期間
securities, “whether the securities are intended to be
保有されることが意図される場合、満期まで保有されること
traded frequently, held for a longer duration, held to
が意図される場合、又は発行体が解散するまで保有される
maturity, or held until the dissolution of the entity.”
ことが意図される場合のいずれであろうと」、ジョイント・ベン
Similarly, issuers may not rely on the joint venture
チャーにかかる除外事由には該当しないとされている。同様
exclusion if the issuer raises money from investors
に、発行体が「主として転売用の有価証券に投資する目的
“primarily for the purpose of investing in securities for
で」投資家から資金を集める場合には、発行体の設立目的
resale,” even if one of the purposes in forming the entity
に事業の経営や投資以外の他の活動に従事することが含
is to conduct a business or engage in other noninvestment activities.
まれていたとしても、ジョイント・ベンチャーに関する適用除
外事由に依拠することはできないとされている。
For more information, please contact:
コンタクト
Akihiro Wani
Tokyo
03 3214 6522
[email protected]
和仁亮裕
東京
03 3214 6522
[email protected]
Katsuhiko Fujihira
Tokyo
03 3214 6522
[email protected]
藤平克彦
東京
03 3214 6522
[email protected]
細川兼嗣
東京
03 3214 6522
[email protected]
Kenji Hosokawa
Tokyo
03 3214 6522
[email protected]
FOOTNOTES
脚注
[1]
[1]
12 C.F.R. § 248.10(c)(1).
[2]
12 C.F.R. § 248.2(c)(iv).
[3]
See 79 Fed. Reg. 5536, 5676 (Jan. 31, 2014).
[4]
See Volcker Rule Frequently Asked Questions (June
12, 2015), available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volckerrule/faq.htm#14.
12 C.F.R. § 248.10(c)(1).
12 C.F.R. § 248.2(c)(iv).
[3]
79 Fed. Reg. 5536, 5676 (Jan. 31, 2015) を参照。
[4]
Volcker Rule Frequently Asked Questions (June 12,
2015) を参照。
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volckerrule/faq.htm#14 にて閲覧可能（項目 14 をクリック）。
[2]
4
Client Alert
[5]
[5]
米国外の公募ファンドのシード投資期間に関する取り扱
いについては、FAQ 第 5 項（June10, 2014）を参照。上記
ウェブページで閲覧可能（項目 5 をクリック）。
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volckerrule/faq.htm#5
[6]
この基準は、ボルカー･ルールのセクション 12 における
投資制限に適合しているか否かを決定する目的で、RIC、
SEC の規制下の小規模事業開発会社又は米国外の公募フ
ァンドが銀行等の関連会社等とみなされるか否かを判定す
るための特別の基準を定めるボルカー・ルールの規定を、
準用したものである。12 C.F.R. §248.12(b)(ii).
The flexibility of a seeding period for foreign public
funds was first addressed in FAQ #5. See Volcker Rule
Frequently Asked Questions (June 10, 2014), available
at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volckerrule/faq.htm#5.
[6]
This standard is imported from a section of the
Volcker Rule that addresses the special standards under
which a RIC, an SEC-regulated small business
development company, or a foreign public fund will be
deemed to be affiliates of a banking entity for purposes
of determining whether the investment limitations in
Section 12 of the Volcker Rule are met. 12 C.F.R. §
248.12(b)(ii).
[7]
12 C.F.R. § 248.10(c)(3).
[8]
See Volcker Rule Frequently Asked Questions (June
12, 2015), available at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volckerrule/faq.htm#15.
[7]
2 C.F.R. § 248.10(c)(3).
Volcker Rule Frequently Asked Questions (June 12,
2015) を参照。
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volckerrule/faq.htm#15 にて閲覧可能（項目 15 をクリック）。
[8]
About Morrison & Foerster:
モリソン・フォースターについて
We are Morrison & Foerster—a global firm of
モリソン・フォースターは優れた実績を誇る世界的な法律事
exceptional credentials. Our clients include some of the
務所です。クライアントには大手金融機関、投資銀行、
largest financial institutions, investment banks, Fortune
Fortune 100 企業、テクノロジー・ライフサイエンス関連企業
100, technology and life science companies. We’ve
等が名を連ねています。American Lawyer 誌の A-List に
been included on The American Lawyer’s A-List for 11
過去 11 年間連続で選ばれただけでなく、Fortune 誌が「働
straight years, and Fortune named us one of the “100
きたい全米トップ 100 企業」として当事務所を挙げていま
Best Companies to Work For.” Our lawyers are
す。モリソン･フォースターの弁護士はクライアントのために
committed to achieving innovative and business-minded
最良の結果を出すことに全力を注ぐ一方で、より強固な事務
results for our clients, while preserving the differences
that make us stronger. Visit us at www.mofo.com.
所となるべく各弁護士の個性を失わないよう配慮していま
す。詳しくは、当事務所のウェブサイト（www.mofo.com）を
ご覧ください。
本稿は一般的なもので、ここに含まれる情報はあらゆる事
案に適用されるものではなく、また個別の事案に対する具体
的な法的アドバイスを提供するものでもありません。
Because of the generality of this update, the information
provided herein may not be applicable in all situations
and should not be acted upon without specific legal
advice based on particular situations. Prior results do
not guarantee a similar outcome.
5
Client Alert
APPENDIX A
FAQs #14 and #15 (Posted 6/10-12/2015)
14. How does the final rule apply to a foreign public fund sponsored by a
banking entity?
[20]
The final rule excludes foreign public funds from the definition of covered fund. To qualify for this
exclusion, these funds must, among other conditions, be authorized to offer and sell ownership interests to
retail investors in the foreign public fund’s home jurisdiction and must sell ownership interests
[21]
predominantly in public offerings outside of the United States. The Agencies stated that this exclusion
was “designed to prevent...the definition of covered fund from including foreign funds that are similar to
[22]
U.S. registered investment companies, which are by statute not covered by section 13.” The Agencies
also stated that the “foreign public fund exclusion is designed to treat foreign public funds consistently with
similar U.S. funds and to limit the extraterritorial application of section 13 of the BHC Act, including by
permitting U.S. banking entities and their foreign affiliates to carry on traditional asset management
[23]
businesses outside of the United States.”
[24]
Staffs of the Agencies understand that, unlike in the case of U.S. registered investment companies,
sponsors of foreign public funds in some foreign jurisdictions select the majority of the fund’s directors or
trustees, or otherwise control the fund for purposes of the BHC Act by contract or through a controlled
corporate director. These and other corporate governance structures abroad therefore have raised
questions regarding whether foreign public funds that are sponsored and distributed outside the U.S. and
in accordance with foreign laws are banking entities by virtue of their relationships with a banking entity.
As noted by the Agencies in the preamble to the final rule, the definition of private equity fund and hedge
fund in section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act appears to reflect Congressional concerns regarding less
regulated private funds as well as an intention not to disrupt registered investment companies, such as
[25]
U.S. mutual funds. The final implementing regulations issued by the Agencies adopted the same
approach toward foreign public funds in order to make clear that U.S. banking entities and their foreign
affiliates, as well as foreign banking organizations, could continue to carry on their traditional asset
[26]
management businesses involving foreign public funds outside of the United States. The final rule
imposes conditions to ensure that the foreign public fund is distributed predominantly through public
offerings outside the United States, is offered to retail investors in the issuer’s home jurisdiction, is
distributed in accordance with all applicable requirements for distributing public funds in the jurisdiction in
which the distribution is being made, and includes publicly available offering disclosure documents. These
requirements were designed to mirror the characteristics of U.S. mutual funds that are outside the
[27]
applicability of section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
By referring to characteristics common to publicly distributed foreign funds rather than requiring that foreign
public funds organize themselves identically to U.S. mutual funds or other types of U.S. regulated
investment companies, the final rule recognized that foreign jurisdictions have established their own
frameworks governing the details for the operation and distribution of foreign public funds.
Section 248.12 of the final rule further provides that, for purposes of complying with the covered fund
investment limits, a U.S. registered investment company, SEC-regulated business development company,
or foreign public fund will not be considered to be an affiliate of the banking entity so long as the banking
entity: (i) does not own, control, or hold with the power to vote 25 percent or more of the voting shares of
the fund; and (ii) provides investment advisory, commodity trading advisory, administrative, and other
services to the fund in compliance with the limitations under applicable regulation, order, or other authority.
The staffs of the Agencies note that these limitations would include those imposed by an authority in the
[28]
relevant foreign jurisdiction.
Staffs of the Agencies would not advise that the activities and investments of a foreign public fund that
meets the requirements in section 248.10(c)(1) and section 248.12(b)(1) of the final rule be attributed to
the banking entity for purposes of section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act or the final rule where, consistent with
section 248.12(b)(1) of the final rule, the banking entity does not own, control, or hold with the power to
[29]
vote 25 percent or more of the voting shares of the foreign public fund (after the seeding period), and
provides investment advisory, commodity trading advisory, administrative, and other services to the fund in
compliance with applicable limitations in the relevant foreign jurisdiction. Nor would the staffs advise that a
6
Client Alert
foreign public fund be deemed a banking entity under the final rule solely by virtue of its relationship with
the sponsoring banking entity where the foreign public fund meets the requirements of section 248.10(c)(1)
of the final rule and the sponsoring banking entity’s relationship with the foreign public fund meets the
requirements of section 248.12(b)(1) of the final rule, including the requirement that the sponsoring
banking entity’s relationship with the fund is in compliance with applicable limitations in the foreign
jurisdiction in which the foreign public fund operates.
[20]
See § 248.10(c)(1). The final rule defines the term “covered fund” to include certain funds that rely on
section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act; certain commodity pools as defined in section
1a(10) of the Commodity Exchange Act; and certain foreign funds. See § 248.10(b)(1).
[21]
See § 248.10(c)(1).
[22]
79 FR at 5673. The Agencies also noted more generally that the exclusions from the covered fund
definition were designed, among other purposes, “to address the potential over-breadth of the covered
fund definition and related requirements without such exclusions by permitting banking entities to invest
in and have other relationships with entities that do not relate to the statutory purpose of section 13.” 79
FR at 5677.
[23]
79 FR at 5678. The Agencies explained in the preamble that they “tailored the final definition [of
covered fund] to include entities of the type that the Agencies believe Congress intended to capture in its
definition of private equity fund and hedge fund in section 13(h)(2) of the BHC Act by reference to section
3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. Thus, the final definition focuses on the types of
entities formed for the purpose of investing in securities or derivatives for resale or otherwise trading in
securities or derivatives, and that are offered and sold in offerings that do not involve a public offering, but
typically involve offerings to institutional investors and high-net worth individuals (rather than to retail
investors).” 79 FR at 5666.
[24]
See 79 FR at 5676 (recognizing that the Federal Reserve Board’s regulations and orders have long
recognized that a bank holding company may organize, sponsor, and manage a registered investment
company, including by serving as investment adviser to the registered investment company, without
controlling the registered investment company for purposes of the BHC Act).
[25]
. See, e.g., 79 FR at 5675 (“Section 13’s definition of private equity fund and hedge fund by reference to
section 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act appears to reflect Congress’ concerns about
banking entities’ exposure to and relationships with investment funds that explicitly are excluded from SEC
regulation as investment companies.”). (emphasis in original) See also e.g., 79 FR at 5666.
[26]
79 FR at 5678 (stating “the Agencies’ view that the foreign public fund exclusion is designed to treat
foreign public funds consistently with similar U.S. funds and to limit the extraterritorial application of section
13 of the BHC Act, including by permitting U.S. banking entities and their foreign affiliates to carry on
traditional asset management businesses outside of the United States”).
[26]
79 FR at 5678.
[27]
See § 248.12(b)(1)(ii). See also 79 FR at 5732 (“[F]or purposes of section 13 of the BHC Act and the
final rule, a registered investment company, SEC-regulated business development company, and a foreign
public fund as described in § .10(c)(1) of the final rule will not be considered to be an affiliate of the
banking entity if the banking entity owns, controls, or holds with the power to vote less than 25 percent of
the voting shares of the company or fund, and provides investment advisory, commodity trading advisory,
administrative, and other services to the company or fund only in a manner that complies with other
limitations under applicable regulation, order, or other authority.”)
[28]
See §§ 248.10(c)(12) and 248.20(e). The preamble to the final rule makes clear that, consistent with
the Board’s precedent regarding bank holding company control of and relationships with funds, a seeding
vehicle that will become a registered investment company would not itself be viewed as violating the
requirements of section 13 during the seeding period so long as the banking entity that establishes the
seeding vehicle operates the vehicle pursuant to a written plan, developed in accordance with the banking
entity’s compliance program, that reflects the banking entity’s determination that the vehicle will become a
registered investment company within the time period provided for seeding a covered fund. See 79 FR at
5676-77. The staffs of the Agencies have explained that an issuer that will become a foreign public fund
7
Client Alert
would be treated during its seeding period in the same manner as an issuer that will become an excluded
registered investment company. http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volcker-rule/faq.htm#5.
Joint Venture Exclusion for Covered Funds
15. May an issuer that would be a covered fund rely on the joint venture
exclusion from the definition of covered fund under § 248.10(c)(3) of the final
rule?
Section 248.10(c)(3) of the final rule provides that a covered fund does not include a joint venture between
a banking entity or any of its affiliates and one or more unaffiliated persons, provided that the joint venture:

Is comprised of no more than 10 unaffiliated co-venturers;

Is in the business of engaging in activities that are permissible for the banking entity or affiliate,
other than investing in securities for resale or other disposition; and

Is not, and does not hold itself out as being, an entity or arrangement that raises money
from investors primarily for the purpose of investing in securities for resale or other
disposition or otherwise trading in securities.
As explained in the preamble to the final rule, one of the purposes of section 13 of the Bank Holding
Company Act (“BHC Act”) is to limit investment and sponsorship activities of banking entities in hedge
funds and private equity funds, which section 13 of the BHC Act generally defines as entities that rely on
[30]
certain specified exclusions in the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule defines hedge funds
[31]
and private equity funds collectively as “covered funds.” The preamble to the final rule explains that the
definition of covered fund focuses on the types of entities formed for the purpose of investing in securities
or derivatives for resale or other trading activity that are not subject to all of the securities law protections
applicable to funds that are registered with the SEC as investment companies. A joint venture that qualifies
for the joint venture exclusion in the final rule, however, is excluded from the definition of covered fund.
The conditions to the joint venture exclusion reflect that the exclusion is designed to be used by a banking
entity to conduct businesses and operations in conjunction with a limited number of co-venturers and that
the exclusion is not intended to include entities that invest in securities for resale or other disposition.
Similarly, the exclusion would not apply to entities or arrangements that raise money from investors
primarily for the purpose of investing in securities for the benefit of one or more investors and sharing the
income, gain or losses on securities acquired by that entity. The limitations in the joint venture exclusion
are meant to ensure that the joint venture is not an investment vehicle and that the joint venture exclusion
[32]
is not used as a means to evade the limitations in the BHC Act on investing in covered funds.
This exclusion is not met by an issuer that raises money from a small number of investors primarily for the
purpose of investing in securities, whether the securities are intended to be traded frequently, held for a
longer duration, held to maturity, or held until the dissolution of the entity. The exclusion also is not met by
an entity that raises money from investors primarily for the purpose of investing in securities for resale or
other disposition or otherwise trading in securities merely because one of the purposes for establishing the
vehicle may be to provide financing to an entity to obtain and hold securities. As the preamble explains, the
exclusion is designed to allow a banking entity to more efficiently manage the risks of its banking
operations by, for example, seeking to obtain or share complementary business expertise. The conditions
imposed on the exclusion are specifically intended to prevent the exclusion from being used as a vehicle to
raise funds from investors primarily for the purpose of profiting from investment activity in securities for
[33]
resale or other disposition or otherwise trading in securities. Thus, for example, a vehicle that raises
funds from investors primarily for the purpose of sharing in the benefits, income, gains or losses from
ownership of securities--as opposed to conducting a business or engaging in operations or other noninvestment activities--would be raising money from investors primarily for the purpose of “investing in
[34]
securities,” even if the vehicle may have other purposes.
8
Client Alert
[30]
See, e.g., Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and
Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 79 FR 5536 (Jan. 31, 2014) at 5670-5671.
[31]
The final rule generally defines the term “covered fund” to include certain funds that rely on section
3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940; certain commodity pools as defined in section
1a(10) of the Commodity Exchange Act; and certain foreign funds. See section 248.10(b)(1) of the final
rule.
[32]
The joint venture exclusion is subject to conditions, as noted above. As an initial matter, the entity
seeking to rely on the exclusion must be a joint venture. While the term “joint venture” is not defined
separately in the final rule, the Agencies’ staffs note that the basic elements of a joint venture are well
recognized, including under state law. Although any determination of whether an arrangement is a joint
venture will depend on the facts and circumstances, the Agencies’ staffs generally would not expect that a
person that does not have some degree of control over the business of an entity would be considered to be
participating in “a joint venture between a banking entity or any of its affiliates and one or more unaffiliated
persons” as specified in § 248.10(c)(3) of the final rule.
[33]
See 79 FR 5536 at 5680-82.
[34]
See, e.g., 79 FR 5536 at 5681 (stating that the limit on the number of co-venturers “allows flexibility in
structuring larger business ventures without involving such a large number of partners as to suggest the
venture is in reality a hedge fund or private equity fund established for investment purposes” and that “[t]he
Agencies will monitor joint ventures--and other excluded entities--to ensure that they are not used by
banking entities to evade the provisions of section 13”; also stating that “[t]he final rule’s requirement that a
joint venture not be an entity or arrangement that raises money from investors primarily for the purpose of
investing in securities for resale or other disposition or otherwise trading in securities prevents a banking
entity from relying on this exclusion to evade section 13 of the BHC Act by owning or sponsoring what is or
will become a covered fund”).
9

Download Report