13.07.2015 Views

Download - Practising Law Institute

Download - Practising Law Institute

Download - Practising Law Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

§ 4:4.1 MUTUAL FUND REGULATIONmanagers; and revised sales and distribution arrangements. For thispurpose, counsel should attempt to ensure that the current prospectusand SAI are distributed for review to the appropriate officers of thefund’s investment adviser and administrators. An annual update tothe fund’s officer and director questionnaire should also be circulatedfor completion.One aspect of this annual review process requires some carefulanalysis. As indicated above, prospectus disclosure about investmentstrategies and risks should focus on what the fund is in fact doing, andnot what it might do. During the course of a year, the types ofsecurities in which the fund is actually investing and which itintends to emphasize can vary considerably, and the disclosures inlast year’s prospectus may not be adequate. For example, the portfoliomanagers of a growth equity fund that previously had substantialaggregate positions in technology stocks, and included an explanationof the attendant risks, may have restructured the portfolio becausethey view the healthcare industry as providing better prospects. Todetermine whether prospectus disclosure should change, it is useful toreview the portfolio listings in the fund’s current annual report (or, if itis not yet available, the latest semi-annual report), and it is imperativeto discuss the matter with the relevant portfolio managers. 29 This typeof discussion may also result in proposed changes in future positionsthat may create issues under the 1940 Act. 30When filing an amendment to the fund’s registration statement,Part C must also be updated. However, previously filed exhibits can beincorporated by reference in the exhibit listing.29. For another example, see Piper Capital Mgmt., Inc., Initial Dec. ReleaseNo. ID-175, 73 S.E.C. Docket 2524-77, 2000 WL 1759455 (Nov. 30,2000). In this proceeding, a fund with the objectives of achieving a highlevel of current income and preserving capital initially invested only inU.S. Treasury notes and ordinary government agency securities. The fundlater began shifting the overall composition of its portfolio to leveragedinvestments in interest-rate-sensitive collateralized mortgage obligations.The administrative law judge held that the alteration in the fund’sportfolio materially deviated from the objective of preserving capital andwas not adequately disclosed in the prospectus.30. See, e.g., In re Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation,No. C08-01510 [WHA] (S.D. Cal. 2009), holding that section 13(a) ofthe 1940 Act required a shareholder vote before a fund could lawfullydeviate from the statement in its SAI that it would treat mortgage-backedsecurities issued by private lenders and not federally guaranteed as anindustry for purposes of its concentration policy.4–30

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!