SEC Request for Comments on Fund Names

Published on:
May 5, 2020
Submitted to:
SEC
Submitted by:
SIFMA AMG
File Number:
S7-04-20

Summary

SIFMA AMG provided comments to the SEC on the Commission’s request for public comment on the framework for addressing names of registered investment companies and business development companies, governed by section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act” or the “1940 Act”), rule 35d-1 thereunder (the “Names Rule”), and the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws.

AMG is very supportive of this solicitation of public comments on the Names Rule and the associated challenges the industry has faced over the nearly twenty years since its adoption. Feedback from market participants will provide the Commission with important perspective to help shape a more efficient and robust regulatory evaluation of fund names.

Excerpt

May 5, 2020

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549

Re: Request for Comments on Fund Names File No. S7-04-20

Dear Ms. Countryman:

The Asset Management Group (the “AMG”) of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”)1 appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “SEC”) on the Commission’s request for public comment on the framework for addressing names of registered investment companies and business development companies, governed by section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act” or the “1940 Act”), rule 35d-1 thereunder (the “Names Rule”), and the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws.2 AMG is very supportive of this solicitation of public comments on the Names Rule and the associated challenges the industry has faced over the nearly twenty years since its adoption. Feedback from market participants will provide the Commission with important perspective to help shape a more efficient and robust regulatory evaluation of fund names. SIFMA AMG gathered input from many member firms and we are pleased to provide feedback on a number of the topics and questions included in the Request in furtherance of the Commission’s efforts.

I. INTRODUCTION

Section 35(d) of the 1940 Act provides protections to investors of all funds, regardless of whether a fund is subject further to rule 35d-1. This section makes it unlawful for a fund to use in its name “any word or words that the Commission finds are materially deceptive or misleading.” This general guideline applies to any fund and any words used in a fund name. Section 35(d) also authorizes the Commission to designate specific fund names by rule that would be materially deceptive or misleading. The Commission did so in adopting the Names Rule in 2001.

Continue Reading

Details

Download

More Content

  • Amicus Briefs
    Oct 05, 2026

    In re The Boeing Company Securities Litigation

  • Letters
    Oct 05, 2026

    Reducing Duplicative Regulation and Expanding Exemptions for Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors

    SIFMA AMG comments on CFTC proposals to reduce duplicative regulation for certain CPOs and CTAs and account for inflation.
  • Letters
    Sep 30, 2026

    Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA Rules 0150, 2165, 4512 and to Adopt FINRA Rule 2166

    SIFMA Comments to SEC in support of the proposed rule changes to improve the utilization of Rules 2165 and 4512, as well as the new Rule 2166 to allow for a temporary delay for suspected fraud.

Get the latest trends, stats, and research on financial markets and securities.