2 

'ArJ ieA. " ...; ". '_'.'tc 

S"£c':im-r ~(C.)(l) ) ~(c)(-l)' 2 f.d)
 

HCiLE or 

PUBLIC . í l.V Å l1,A "6IL 2'28.Q"T ,. 

Our Ref. No. 96-434-CC 

REPONSE OF TIE OFFICE OF CIlEF COUNSEL Goodwin, Procter & Hoar 

DIVISION OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT File No. 132-3 

Your letter dated October 24, 1996 requests our concurrence with your views on three 

issues concerning the application of Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 

("Investment Company Act"). First, you request confination that investment companies 

formed under the laws of a jurisdiction other than the United States and not registered under 

the Investment Company Act ("Foreign Funds") may offer and sell their shares to U.S. 

residents that are "qualfied purchasers" in accordace with the terms of new Section 3(c)(7) 

i Second, you request our concurrence that Foreign Funds may rely on the
 of the Act. 


definition of "U.S. person" in Rule 902(0) of Regulation S ("Reg. S") under the Securities 

Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") in considerig whether a potential investor in a Foreign Fund 

is a U.S. resident beneficial owner for purposes of determining whether the Fund is acting in 

accordance with Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act. 2 Third, you seek our 

concurrence that a Foreign Fund would not be deemed to violate the provisions of Section 

7(d) if it sells its securities in an offerig in the United States that is not a public offering 

within the meaning of Section7(d) ("private offering") at the same time that it conducts an 

offshore public offering of its securities that complies with the provisions of Reg. S. 

1. Background
 

Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act prohibits a Foreign Fund from using the 

U. S. mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to offer or sell its 

securities in connection with a public offering unless the Commission issues an order 

permitting the Foreign Fund to register under the Investment Company Act. Section 7(d) 

author.ies the Commission to issue such an order only if the Commission finds that it is both 

legally and practicaly feasible to enforce the provisions of the Investment Company Act 

Section 3(c)(7) was added to the Investment Company Act by the National Securities 

Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (the "1996 Amendments"). 

Reg. S clares the extraterrtorial application of the registration provisions under the 

Securities Act. Reg. S provides generay that Section 5 of the Securities Act does 

not apply to offers and sales of securities if both the offer and the sale occur outside 

the United States. Reg. S also incIlides two sae harors for specifed trasactions: 

Rule 903 (the "issuer safe harbor") and Rule 904 (the "resale safe harbor"). 

Transactions that satisfy al the conditions of the applicable safe harbor are deemed to 

be made outside the United States and thus are not subject to the registration 

requirements of Sectic,)f 5 of the Securities Act. See Securities Act Release No. 6863 

(Apr. 24, 1990) (adopting Reg. S). Reg. S does not apply to offers and sales by 

open-end investment companies or unit investment trusts registered or required to be 

registered or closed-end investment companies required to be registered, but not 

registered, under the Investment Company Act. Preliminary note 8 to Reg. S. 
" 

against the Foreign Fund, and that the issuance of the order is consistent with the public 

interest and the protection of investors. Congress has indicated that Section 7(d) was 

intended to subject Foreign Funds that access the U.S. market to the same type and degree of 3 regulation that applies to U. S. investment companes. 


By its terms, Section 7(d) does not address a private offerig in the United States
 

underten by a Foreign Fund. In light of the purpose of Section 7(d), however, the staff 

has interpreted and applied that section with reference to Section 3(c)(I) of the Investment 

Company Act. Section 3(c)(1) excepts from the defintion of investment company any issuer 

whose securities are beneficially owned by not more than 100 persons and that is not makng, 

and does not presently propose to make, a public offering of its securities (a "Section 3(c)(1) 

company").4 In Touche Remnant & Co. (pub. avai. Aug. 27, 1984) ("Touche Remnant"), 

the staff concluded that a Foreign Fund could make a private offerig in the United States 

without violating Section 7(d) only if after the private offering the Fund's securities are held 5 by no more than 100 beneficial owners resident in the United States. 


The staff's position in Touche Remnant is intended to treat private offerings by 

Foreign Funds comparably to offerings underten by Section 3(c)(I) companies. Touche 

Remnant also reflects the staff's conclusion that, in drafting Section 7(d), Congress could not 

have intended Foreign Funds to be able to conduct private offerigs in the United States to a 

greater extent than those permitted to be conducted by Section 3(c)(1) companies. 	 6 

See S. Rep. No. 1775, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 13 (1940); H.R. Rep. No. 2639, 76th 

Cong., 3d Sess. 13 (1940). 

4	 Section 3(c)(1) reflects a determination that public interest concerns arse when an 

investment company has more than 100 shareholders and that, as a result, the 

investment company should be required to register under the Investment Company 

Act. See Investment Trusts and Investment Companies: Heags on S. 3580 Before 

a Subcomm. of the Senate Comm. on Bang and Currency, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 

179 (1940). 

The Commission cited this position with approval in Securities Act Release No. 6862 

(Apri 23, 1990) (adopting Rule 144A under the Securities Act). 

6	 Whie Section 7(d), by its terms, prohibits only a "public offerig" of securities bya 

Foreign Fund in the United States, applying the liits of Section 3(c)(1) to private 

offerigs under Section 7(d) is consistent with Congress' intent in enacting Section
 

7(d). At the time Congress used the words "public offerig" in Section 7(d) 


a non-


public offerig generay involved a very liited number of paricipants, well below
 , 

the 100 investor liit of Section 3( c)(1). The traditional view, as expressed by the
 

Commission's Office' 
 of General Counsel, was that although the determination of 

whether an offering was public was one of fact that should be made on a case-by-case 

basis, ordinarily an offering to 
 more than 25 persons would be viewed as a public 

2
 
7 

The staf clared the Touche Remnant position in a letter to the Investment Funds 

Institute of Canada (pub. avai. Mar. 4, 1996) ("IFlC"). In that letter, the staf recognized 

that, as a genera matter, a Foreign Fund should not be 
 deemed to have violated Section 7(d)

if the 100 U. S. beneficial owner liit under Touche Remnant is exceed due to the 

independent actions of the Fund's securityholders. Consistent with this priciple, the
 

Division stated that it would not recommend enforcement action under Section 7(d) if a 

Foreign Fund that has offered its securities privately to U.S. investors has more than 100 

securityholders resident in the United States solely as a result of (I) the relocation of foreign 

securityholders of the Fund to the United States; or (2) offshore secondary market 

transactions not involving the Foreign Fund or its agents, affilates or intermediares. 

II. Section 3(c)(7) and Section 7(d)
 

Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act provides a new exclusion from the 

definition of investment company for issuers whose securities are owned exclusively by 

"qualified purchasers," provided that the issuer is not makg, and does not presently 

propose to make, a public offerig of its securities ("Section 3(c)(7) companies," and 

together with Section 3(c)(1) companies, "private investment companies").7 Section 3(c)(7) 

reflects the view that certin investors with a high degree of financial sophistication do not 

require the substantive protections of the Investment Company Act. 8 

offerig. Securities Act Release No. 285 (Jan. 24, 1935). Twenty-five persons
 

remaied the generay accepted ceilg for private offers for a number of yeas. See 

L. Loss and J. Seligman, The Fundaentas of Securities Regulation, 308 (1995). 

The concept of a "public offerig" has evolved considerably since 1940. ~,Rules 

505 and 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act (permitting private offerings 

involving an unlited number of accredited investors). We believe, however, that 

Section 7(d) should be interpreted in a maner consistent with both Congressional 

intent and the policies and purposes of the Investment Company Act as a whole. We 

believe it inconsistent with Congressional intent and the regulatory fraework 

established by the Investment Company Act for a Foreign Fund to be able to offer its 

securities privately to more U.S. residents than could a Section 3(c)(I) company. 

The term "qualed purchaser" is defined in new Section 2(a)(51) to include (1) 

individuals and cert family companes that have not less than $5 milon in 

"investments," (2) cert trusts if both the trustee or other person with investment
 

discretion and al settlors or other contributors are qualed purchasers, and (3) other 

persons that own and invest on a discretionar basis not less than $25 milon in 

"investments." The Commission has proposed rules that would define "investments" 

for purposes of Section 2(a)(51). Investment Company Act Release No. 22405, 

(December 18, 1996). 

See H.R. Rep. No. 622, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 18 (1996). 

3 
As noted above, Section 7(d) reflects a Congressional determination that Foreign 

Funds that access the U. S. market should be subject to the same type and degree of 

regulation that applies to U.S. investment companes. Consistent witli this priciple, we 

believe that a Foreign Fund may privately offer and sell its securities to qualied purchasers 

in the United States in accordace with the provisions of Section 3(c)(7) (and any 

Commission rules promulgated under the section) without violating Section 7(d).9 A 

Foreign Fund that wishes to offer its securities privately in the United States, lie a U.S. 

private investment company, may rely on either Section 3(c)(I) or Section 3(c)(7). io In 

addition, a Foreign Fund that has sold its securities to 100 or fewer U.S. resident beneficial 

owners in the manner outlined in Touche Remnant may, lie a U.S. private investment 

company, rely on the "grandfatherig" provision of Section 3(c)(7)(B) to privately offer 

securities to qualifed purchasers in accordance with Section 3(c)(7). \I We also believe that 

it is consistent with the purpose of Section 7(d) for a Foreign Fund relying on Section 3(c)(l) 

or Section 3(c)(7) to comply with the "consent" provision in Section 2(a)(51)(B) of the 

Investment Company Act to the extent that it intends to be deemed a qualifed purchaser of 12 securities of Section 3(c)(7) companies. 


il. Section 7(d) and "U.S. Person"
 

A Foreign Fund seekig to make a private offerig in the United States must 

determine whether existing or prospective shareholders should be considered beneficial 

9	 In our view, tlie non-U.S. resident shareholders of a Foreign Fund relying on Section 

3(c)(7) to offer its securities in the United States nee not be qualed purchasers. 

10 As is the case with domestic private investment companes, a Foreign Fund may not 

simultaneously seek to rely on Section 3 
 (c) (7) to offer securities to U.S. resident qualied purchasers and Section 3(c)(l) to offer securities to 100 U.S. residents who 

are not qualed purchasers.
 

\I Section 3 
 (c) (7) (B) allows cert existing Section 3(c)(I) companes to convert to 

Section 3(c)(7) companes and "gradfather" their existing investors that are not 

qualed purchasers, provided that those investors reive appropriate disclosure and 

adequate notice and opportnity to reeem their investments. In applying the 

gradfatherig provision, a Foreign Fund must meet the requirements of that
 

provision only with respect to those U.S. resident beneficial owners that should be 

counted under the priciples set out in IFC. 

12	 Section 2(a)(51)(B) requires a private investment company that wishes to becme a 

qualied purchaser to obta the consent of all its beneficial owners that invested in it 

prior to Apri 30, 1996. We believe that a Foreign Fund nee comply with this
 

provision only with respect to U.S. resident beneficial owners that are to be counted 

under the principles set out in IFIC. 

4 
owners resident in the United States for purposes of Section 7(d).13 You suggest that it 

would be appropriate and consistent with previous staf positionsl4 for a Foreign Fund 

makg a private offerig in the United States withi the meag of Section 7(d) to rely on 

the defintion of "U.S. person" in Rule 902(0) of Reg. S for purposes of determinig whether 

an investor should be deemed aU. S. resident beneficial owner. 

We believe that the defintion of U.S. person in Rule 902(0) of Reg. S can be used 

generay in the context of Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act. Reliance on certin 

provisions of Rule 902(0), however, may under cert circumstaces rase issues under 

Section 48(a) of the Investment Company Act. 15 Our views with respect to the relevant 

provisions of Rule 902(0) are set forth below. 

a. Natural Persons
 

A natural person's residency, rather than citizenship, determines his or her status 

under Rule 902(0)(l)(i) of Reg. S. For example, a citizen of another country residing in the 

United States is a U.S. person under Reg. S, whie a U.S. citizen residing abroad is not a 

U.S. person. We believe that residency should also determine whether an individual must be 

considered a U.S. resident beneficial owner for purposes of Section 7(d). Thus, we conclude 

that it would be appropriate for a Foreign Fund to count as U.S. resident beneficial owners 

those natural persons who would be considered to be U.S. persons under Rule 902(0)(1)(i). 

In our view, a distinction should be made under Section 7(d), as under Reg. S, 

between persons permanently residing abroad, and U.S. residents who are temporay 

abroad. U.S. citizens and other persons permanently residing abroad who purchase securities 

13 Your letter does not contemplate the situation in which a Foreign Fund does not use 

U.S. jurisdictional meas in connection with the offer or sale of any of its securities. 

The staf has taen the view that such a Foreign Fund is not subject to Section 7(d), 

even if U.S. residents purchase the Fund's securities in transactions that occur outside 

the United States. See Global Mutual Fund Survey (pub. avail. July 14, 1992). 

14 See, ~, Merr, Lynch & Co., Inc. (pub. avai. May 12, 1986) ("Merr"); 

Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (pub. avai. Aug. 17, 1987) ("Prdential"); G.T. 

Global Financial Services, Inc. (pub. avai. Aug. 2, 1988) ("G.T. Global"). In each 

of these letters, the reuesting pary defined the term "U.S. resident" to include: (1) a 

citizen or resident of the United States; (2) a parnership organ or existing in any 

state, terrtory or possession of the United States; (3) a corporation organed under 

the laws of the United States; and (4) any estate or trust, other than an estate or trust 

the income of which from sources without the United States is not includible in gross 

income for purposes of computing United States income ta payable on it. 

15 Section 48(a) of the Investment Company Act prohibits any person from doing 

indirectly what he or she would be prohibited from doing directly under that Act. 

5 
16 

may be deemed to have chosen foreign markets, and the laws and regulations applicable to 

those markets.16 U.S. residents who are temporay abroad, however, should be treated 

differently because they continue to maita a permanent presence in 
 the United States that 

warrnts full protection under the federa securities laws. Thus, a Foreign Fund that has 

made or proposes to make a private offering in the United States and that has sold its 

securities to a U.S. resident who is temporay outside the United States should treat that 

person as a beneficial owner resident in the United States for purposes of Section 7(d). 17 

b. Parterships and Corporations
 

(i) General Rule
 

Rule 902(0)(l)(ii) of Reg. S includes within the definition of U.S. person "any 

partnership or corporation organied or incorporated under the laws of the United States." 

Rule 902(0)(l)(v) of Reg. S includes within the definition of U.S. person "any agency or 

branch of a foreign entity located in the United States. " We believe that entities that are 

deemed U.S. persons under these subsections should likewise be treated as U.S. resident 

beneficial owners for purposes of Section 7(d). IS 

See Securities Act Release No. 6863, supra note 2. 

i 7 Whether a person is temporay or permanently residing outside the United States is a 

factual question that depends on al of the circumstances surrounding that person's 

presence in a foreign country. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27017 (July 

11, 1989) (adopting Rule 15a-6 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). 

IS Ths conclusion is consistent with earlier positions taen by the staf. See,~, 

Merr, Prudential, and G.T. Global, supra note 14. Each letter defined the term 

"U.S. resident" to include a parnership organed or existig in any state, terrtory or 

possession of the United States, and a corporation organed under the laws of the 

United States. 

We note that in determing the number of beneficial owners for purposes of Section 

3(c)(1), a "company" ~, a parnership or corpration) that invests in a Section 

3(c)(1) company generay is presumed to be a single beneficial owner. Under the 

1996 Amendments, however, if the acquirng company (1) owns more than 10% of 

the stock of the Section 3(c)(1) company and (2) is (or but for Section 3(c)(1) or 

Section 3 
 (c) (7) would be) an investment company itself, 'the Section 3(c)(1) company is required to count the beneficial owners of the acquirg company towards the 100 

beneficial owner limit. The staf has taen the position under Section 48(a) of the
 

Investment Company Act that if a "company" that invests in a private investment 

company is simply a device for faciltating individual investment decisions of its 

security holders , then the company's securityholders should be deemed to be the 

beneficial owners of the company's investment in the private investment company. 

6 
(ii) Offshore Investment Vehicles for U. S. Persons
 

Rule 902(0)(I)(vii) provides that the term U.S. person includes any parnership or 

corporation organized under foreign law by a U.S. person "principally for the purpose of 

investing" in unregistere securities, unless the parnership or corporation is organ and 

owned by accredited investors (as that term is defined in Regulation D under the Securities 

Act) that are not natura persons, estates or trusts. 
 19 Subsection


(l)(viü) is intended to
 prevent the circumvention of the registration provisions of the Securities Act through the use 

of an offshore entity formed for the purpose of purchasing securities in Reg. S offerigs,
 

unless the entity is formed by sophisticated non-natura persons that can invest directly in 

unregistered securities without the protections of the Securities Act. 20
 

We believe that offshore entities that are deemed U.S. persons under Subsection 

(l)(vüi) should be treated as U.S. resident beneficial owners for purposes of Section 7(d).
 

We also believe that the offshore entities formed by U.S. accredited investors that are 

excluded from the definition of U.S. person by Subsection (l)(viii) generally nee not be 

treated as U.S. resident beneficial owners for purposes of Section 7(d). To the extent, 

however, that a Foreign Fund faciltates the use of an offshore entity by U.S. accredited 

investors as a means to evade the requirements of Section 7(d), we believe that the Foreign 

Fund would violate Section 48(a).21 

See WR Investment Parners (pub. avai. Apr. 15, 1992) (limited partners deemed the 

beneficial owners of the parnership's interest in a Section 3(c)(l) company). In our 

view, these priciples should similarly apply in the context of a private U.S. offerig 

by a Foreign Fund relying on Touche Remnant. 

19 Rule 501(a) of Regulation D defines the term "accredited investor" to include, among 

others, a ban as derined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act, a savings and loan 

association as derined in Section 3 
 (a) (5) (A) of the Securities Act, a broker or deaer registered under Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, any business 

development company as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act, 

an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act, and cert 

employee benefit plans. 

20 See Securities Act Release No. 6863, supra note 2. 

See supra 
 21 note 15. We note that if a Foreign Fund deems an offshore entity covered 

by Rule 902(0)(1)(vii) to be a U.S. resident beneficial owner for purposes of Section
 

7(d), to the extent that the entity meets the defIntion of qualifed purchaser under 

Section 2(a)(51) of the Investment Company Act, it may be treated as a qualfied 

purchaser by a Fund ,seekig to comply with the requirements of Section 3(c)(7). As 

in the domestic context, however, thè offshore entity may not be used as a vehicle for 

evading the qualified purchaser requirement of Section 3(c)(7). The sponsor of the 

7 
(iii) Foreign Agencies or Branches 

Rule 902(0)(6) excludes from the defintion of U.S. person any agency or branch of a
 

U.S. bank or insurace company located outside the United States if it: (1) operates for valid 

business reasons; (2) is engaged in the bankg or insurance business; and (3) is subject to 

substantive bang or insurance regulation in the jurisdiction in which it is located. We see 

no policy reason for treating these entities differently under Section 7(d). Therefore, for 

" 

purposes of Section 7(d), a Foreign Fund nee not count as U.S. resident beneficial owners 

any entity described in Rule 902(0)(6).22
 

c. Truts, Estates, Discretionary and Non-Discretionary Accounts
 

(i) General Rule
 

Under Rule 902(0)(l)(iv) and (o)(1)(ii) of Reg. oS, respectively, a trust or estate is a 

U.S. person if any trustee, executor or administrator is a U.S. person. We believe that it is 

consistent with the purpose of Section 7(d) for a Foreign Fund to look to this provision of 

Reg. S in determinng whether a trust or estate should be deemed a beneficial owner resident 

in the United States for purposes of Section 7 (d). 23 

Rule 902(0)(1)(vi) includes within the defintion of U.S. person any non-discretionary 

account or similar account (other than an estate or trust) held by a deaer or other fiduciary 

for the benefit of a U.S. person. Rule 902(0)(vii) includes withi the defintion of U.S. 

person any discretionar account (other than an estate or trust) that is held by a deaer or 

other fiduciar organed, incorporated or resident in the United States. These provisions are
 

based on the priciple that the person or entity that has the power to diect the investment of 

an account's assets should be deemed to be the buyer for purposes of determing the locus 

Foreign Fund could not, for example, establish the offshore company solely for the 

purpose of creating a qualed purchaser when the U.S. resident owners of the
 

offshore company could not meet the qualed purchaser reuirment individually. 

See H.R. Rep. 622, supra note 8 at 52 ("a promoter of a Section 3(c)(7) fund could
 

not organe a 'sham' Section 3(c)(I) fund to faciltate investment by non-qualified
 

purchasers in the Section 3(c)(7) fund"). 

22 Any brach or agency of a foreign entity that is located in the United States would, 

however, be a U.S. resident beneficial owner. 

23 This treatment of trusts and estates differs from that reflected in ealier staf letters
 

relating to Section 7(d). See Merr and G.T. Global, supra note 14 (reuesters
 

relied on the "sourcing of income" rules under the Internal Revenue Code in
 

determing whether a foreign trust or estate was a "beneficial owner resident in the
 

United States"). In issuing this letter; the staf is not rescinding those previous
 

Letters, which may continue to be relied upon. 

8 
of an offerig.24 The effect of these provisions is that an account managed by a U.S. person 

wil be deemed a U.S. person. We believe that the treatment of accounts under these 

provisions is consistent with the requirements of Section 7(d), and the accounts covere by 

these provisions should be treated as U. S. resident beneficial owners for purposes of Section 

7(d).25 

(ii) Exceptions
 

Rule 902(0)(2) provides an exception from the defintion of U.S. person for
 

discretionar accounts held for the benefit of a non-U.S. person by a deaer or other 

professional fiduciary organed, incorporated, or resident in the United States. Rule 

902(0)(4) provides a similar exception for a trust having a U.S. person acting as a trustee if 

(1) a trustee who is not a U.S. person has sole or shared investment discretion and (2) no 

beneficiar of the trust (or settlor if the trust is revocable) is a U.S. person. Likewise, Rule 

902(0)(3) provides that an estate having a U.S. professional fiduciary acting as adminstrator 

or executor is not a U.S. person if: (1) an administrator or executor 
 of the estate who is not 

a U.S. person has sole or shared investment discretion with respect to the assets of the estate; 

and (2) foreign law governs the estate. In adopting Reg. S, the Commission noted the 

serious competitive disadvantages that U.S. professional fiduciaries, paricularly smaller U.S.
 

advisers, might face if these exceptions were not made.26 

We believe the treatment of accounts, trusts, or estates held for the benefit of nonU.s. persons in Subsections (0)(2), (0)(4) or (0)(3) of Rule 902 is consistent with the purpose 

of Section 7(d). Moreover, the staf has acknowledged that the same type of competitive
 

harm to U.S. trustees and professional fiduciaries that could result if these trusts, estates and 

accounts are considered beneficial owners resident in the U.S. for purpses of Section 

24	 See Securities Act Release No. 6779 (Jun. 10, 1988) (proposing Reg. S). 

25	 The release adopting Reg. S also stated that when a foreign fiduciar or other entity 

has full investment discretion for the account of a U.S. person, that account is not 

treated as a U.S. person. Securities Act Release No. 6863, supra note 2. Becuse 

such an account is managed by a non-U.S. person, we generay agree with this 

treatment for purposes of determing who is a U.S. resident under Section 7(d). To 

the extent, however, that a Foreign Fund faciltates the use of foreign discretionary 

accounts by U.S. persons as a means to evade the requirements of Section 7(d), we 

believe that the Foreign Fund would violate Section 48(a). See supra note 15. 

26	 See Securities Act Release No. 6863, supra note 2. 

9 
7 (d). 27 We believe, therefore, that Foreign Funds nee not treat the entities covered by 

these subsections as U.S. resident beneficial owners under Section 7(d). 

d. Employee Benefit Plans
 

Under Rule 902(0)(5) of Reg. S, an employee benefit plan established and 

adminstered in accordace with the law of a country other than the United States is not 

deemed to be a U.S. person. We believe that an employee benefit plan that is established 

and administered under the law of a country other than the United States 
 ordinary should
 also not be deemed a U.S. resident beneficial owner under Section 7(d).28 

e. Interntional Organizations Operating in the United States
 

Rule 902(0)(7) excludes certin international organiztions, their agencies, affilates, 

and pension plans from the definition of U.S. person. We believe that the entities covered 

by Rule 902(0)(7) also nee not be considered U.S. resident beneficial owners for purposes 

of Section 7(d). 

27 See Fiduciar Trust Global Fund (pub. avai. Aug. 2, 1995) (excludmg discretionar
 

accounts held for the benefit of non-U.S. persons by brokers and other professional 

fiduciares organied in the United States (as defined in Rule 902(0)(2) of Reg. S)
 

from the 100 purchaser liit under Touche Remnant).
 

28	 These employee benefit plans may be treated as non-U.S. residents notwithstading 

that there may be some U.S. residents who are paricipants. Ths represents a 

modifcation of the position taen in Scimita Global Pension Fund (pub. avai. Aug. 

9, 1990) and Win Global Fund (pub. avai. May 14, 1991), in which the staf grated 

no-action assurace to funds offerig shares to pension plans of foreign subsidiares of
 

large U.S. multi-national corporations, if both the plans' adminstrators and any 

participating employees who were U.S. citizns were located outside the United 

States. 

We note that Section 4(b)(4) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 ("ERSA") provides a similar exception for employee benefit plans "maitaed 

outside the United States priary for the benefit of persons substatialy al of whom 

are nonresident alens...." A foreign employee benefit plan that has 
 signicat paricipation by U.S. citizens or residents, however, liely wil be subject to ERSA. 

See, ~, Department of Labor - Pension and Welfare Benefits Adminstration _
 

Advisory Opinons 80-5 (Jan. 28, 1980) (exemption not avaiable when 1,900 

participants (of a total of 25,277) were U.S. citizens); 78-26 (Nov. 27, 1978) 

j

I 

(exemption not available when 60 participants (out of a total 110) were U.S. citizens). 

10 
IV. Integration of U.S. Private Offerings and Reg. S Offerings by Foreign Funds.
 

You maintain that a Foreign Fund should not be deemed to violate the provisions of 

Section 7(d) if it sells its securities in a private offerig in the United States at the same time 

that it conducts an offshore public offerig that complies with the provisions of Rule 903 of 

Reg. S. You note that offers and saes by a foreign issuel-9 (including a Foreign Fund) that 

does not have a "substatial U.S. market interest"30 nee 
 only satisfy two conditions to comply with the Rule 903 safe haror: (1) the offer and sale must be made in an "offshore 

transaction"31 and (2) there may be no "directed sellg efforts"32 in the United States. 

These conditions focus on the location of the offerig activity and the loction of the
 

prospective purchaser, but do not require an examination of the purchaser's residence. Such 

foreign issuers are not precluded by Reg. S from sellg to U.S. persons in the offerig, 

29	 A foreign issuer is defined under Rule 902(t) to include, among other things, "a 

corporation or other organition incorporated or organized under the laws of any
 

foreign country" unless the issuer has (1) more than 50% of its voting securities held 

by record holders with a U.S. address and (2) either (A) the majority of the executive 

officers or directors of the issuer are U.S. citizens or residents, (B) more than 50% of 

the assets of the issuer are located in the United States, or (C) the business of the 

issuer is administered pricipaly in the United States. 

30	 Substantial U.S. market interest for an equity security is defined under Rule 902(n) to 

exist when (I) U.S. securities exchanges or inter-deaer quotation systems constitute
 

the largest market for the security, or (2) 20 % or more of al trding of the security 

taes place on or through the facilties of securities exchanges or inter-deaer 

quotation systems in the United States and less than 55 % of al trading of the security
 

taes place in anyone single country. 

31	 Under Rule 902(i), an offer or sale is made in an "offshore trasaction" if (1) the 

offer is not made to a person in the United States, and (ii) either (A) at the time the 

buy order is originated, the buyer is outside the United States (or the seller reasonably 

believes the buyer is outside the United States) or (B) the sae is through the physical 

trading floor of an established foreign securities exchange. 

32	 "Directed sellg efforts" are defined in Rule 902(b) as activities underten for the 

purpose of, or that could reasonably be expeted to result in, conditionig of the 

market in the United States for securities being offere ~, marketig efforts in the
 

United States designed to induce the purchase of the securities purprtedly being 

distributed abroad). Activities such as maig prited material to U.S. investors, 

conducting promotional seminars in the United States, or placing advertisements with 

radio or television stations broadcasting into the United States or in publications with 

a genera circulation in the United States, which discuss the offerig or could 

reasonably be expected to condition the market for the securities being offered 

abroad, would constitute directed sellg efforts in the U.S. 

11 
provided that the two conditions are met. Rule 903, therefore, would permit a Foreign Fund 

with no substatial U.S. market interest, but that has made or proposes to make a private 

U.S. offerig, to make an offshore sale to a U.S. resident, without violating the registration 

provisions of the Securities Act.
 

In Touche Remnant, the staf took the position that, generay, a Foreign Fund's 

private U.S. offerig would be viewed as separte from the Fund's simultaeous offshore 

public offerig. The staf took the position, therefore, that Section 7(d) does not prohibit a
 

Foreign Fund from conducting a private U.S. offerig simultaeously with an offshore public 

offerig, provided that the Foreign Fund does not use U.S. jurisdictional meas in 

connection with the offshore offering. 
 33 We believe that the same priciple should apply in

the case of a Foreign Fund seekig to make a private offerig in the United States under 

Section 3 
 (c) (7) at the same time that it is makg a public offerig outside the United States. We believe, therefore, that Section 7(d) does not prohibit a Foreign Fund from conducting a 

private U.S. offering in compliance with Section 3(c)(7) simultaneously with an offshore 

public offerig.
 

We note that, in our view, compliance of a Foreign Fund's offshore offering with the 

terms of Rule 903 does not necessariy mean that the offshore offerig does not raise issues 

with respect to the Fund's private U.S. offerig. As noted above, Rule 903 would permit a 

Foreign Fund to make a sale to a U.S. person in an offshore transaction without requirg 

the registration of the offering. Under the staff's interpretation of Section 7(d) in Touche 

Remnant and IFlC, a Foreign Fund must generally count as U.S. resident beneficial owners 

all U.S. residents who have purchased directly or indirectly from the Foreign Fund, its 

agents, affilates, or intermediares.34 The staf also indicated in IFIC that when a Foreign 

Fund, its agents, affilates, or intermediares had sold shares to a U.S. resident beneficial 

owner in a trasaction occurrg outside the United States, it was appropriate to count that 

U.S. resident towards the 100 person liit. The requirement of counting saes to U.S.
 

residents occurrg outside the United States is intended to assure that the prohibitions of 

33	 See also KBS International Ud. (pub. avai. Mar. 18, 1985). The staf has 

regni an offshore offerig that involves only incidenta U.S. jurisdictional 

contacts does not violate Section 7(d). See G.T.Global, supra note 14 (liited use of
 

U.S. mais for the sae of foreign investment company securities to non-resident alens 

through U.S. broker-dealers permitted under Section 7(d)). 

34	 As noted above, the staff stated in IFIC that a Foreign Fund nee not count toward 

the 100 purchaser limit U.S. resident beneficial owners who purchased shares (i) 

directly from the Fund whie residing abroad, or (2) in seconda market trasactions 

not involving the fund or its agents, affilates, or intermediares.
 

12 
Section 7(d) are not circumvented by purposefully structurig offers and sales of shares of 

35 Foreign Funds to U.S. persons as offshore trasactions. 


In our view, therefore, it would be inconsistent with the requirements of Section 7 (d)
 

of the Investment Company Act to rely on Rule 903 to determine whether a Foreign Fund 

has complied with the liits on private offerigs required by Section 7(d). Rather, to the
 

extent that a Foreign Fund has sold securities to a U.S. person in an offshore trasaction in 

reliance on Rule 903, that U.S. person would be deemed a U.S. resident beneficial owner for 

purposes of Section 7(d) and a Foreign Fund that makes a private offerig in the United
 

States in reliance on Touche Remnant would have to count that U.S. person toward the 100 

investor limit of Section 3(c)(l). Similarly, a Foreign Fund that was makg a private 

placement in the United States in reliance on Section 3(c)(7) would have to determine 

whether the U.S. person was a qualified purchaser.

.~~ 

~esPie 

Senior Counsel 

35 As noted above, supra note 13, a Foreign Fund that has never used U.S. jurisdictional 

meas in connection with the offer or sale of any of its securities is not subject to 

Section 7(d), even if U.S. residents purchase the Fund's securities in trasactions that 

occur outside the United States. If that Foreign Fund subsequently seeks to offer its 

securities in the United States, however, it must count those U.S. residents to whom 

it previously sold securities towards the U.S. beneficial owner liits imposed by 

) Section 7 (d). 

13 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP 

COUNSELLORS AT LAW 

EXCHANGE PLACE 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-2B81
 

TELEPHONE (617' 570-1000
 

TELECOPIER (617) 523-1231
 GEOFFREY R, T, KENYON 

(617) 570-1167 

Investment Company Act 

of 1940--Section 7 (d) 

October 24, 1996
 

Offce of Chief Counsel
 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission
 

450 Fifth Street, N. W.
 

Washington, DC 20549 

Attention: John V. O'Hanlon, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We are seeking your interpretative advice on an issue of importance to investment
 

companies organized outside of the United States ("offshore funds"), including many of our
 

clients: the effect of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (the" 1996
 

Improvement Act") upon the Touche Remnant doctrine under Section 7(d) of the Investment
 

Company Act of 1940, as amended (the" 1940 Act"). We are also asking that you clarify the
 

interrelationship between the Touche Remnant doctrine and Regulation S under the Securities
 

Act of 1933, as amended (the" 1933 Act").
 

Specifically, we ask you to confirm that, upon the effectiveness of Section 3(c)(7) of
 

the 1940 Act, i offshore funds may offer and sell their shares to U. S. residents in accordance
 

with the limitations imposed by either Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7). Secondly, we ask 

you to confirm that the definition of a U.S. person set forth in Rule 902(0) of Regulation S 

may be used for purposes of 
 determining who is a resident in the United States under the 2 Finally, we ask you to confirm that a public offering outside of Touche Remnant doctrine. 


Pursuant to the 1996 Improvement Act, Section 3(c)(7) wil take effect on the earlier of 180 

days after its enactment or the date upon which rulemaking is completed to define the term "investments," which 

is a component of the term "qualified purchaser." 

2 The Staff has recently indicated that 
 a U.S. investor who acquires shares in a secondary market 

transaction without the direct or indirect involvement of the offshore fund, its affiiates, agents or intermediaries 

and in compliance with certain other conditions wil not be regarded as a U.S. resident for purposes of the Touche 

Remnant doctrine. See note 13 to Investment Funds Institute of Canada (March 4, 1996). Accordingly, we 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 2
 

the United States by an offshore fund relying upon the Touche Remnant doctrine wil not be 

integrated with a private placement inside the United States so long as the offshore offering is 

conducted in compliance with Regulation S. 

i. THE TOUCHE REMNANT DOCTRINE.
 

Ina series of no-action letters beginning with Touche, Remnant & Co. (August 27, 

1984), the Staff has stated that it would not recommend that the Commission take any 

enforcement action against offshore funds for failing to register under the 1940 Act, provided 

that they do not publicly offer their securities in the United States and that they limit 

ownership of their securities to no more than 100 beneficial owners resident in the U.S. This 

position is sometimes referred to as the "Touche Remnant doctrine." While the Touche 

Remnant doctrine originated as a Staff no-action position, in 1990 it was endorsed by the 

Commission in its release adopting Rule 144A under the 1933 Act. 3 

. \
 

The Touche Remnant doctrine involves an interpretation of Section 7(d) of the 1940 

Act. Section 7(d) provides in relevant part that "(n)o investment company, unless organized 

or otherwise created under the laws of the United States or of a State. . . shall make use of 

the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, to 

offer for sale, sell, or deliver after sale, in connection with a public offering, any security of 

which such company is the issuer." Thus, on its face Section 7(d) only prohibits an offshore 

fund from making a U.S. public offering; the statute contains no express limitation on the 

number of U.S. resident beneficial owners of an offshore fund. In Touche Remnant, the Staff 

rejected a literal reading of Section 7(d). Instead, the Staff essentially adopted a bifurcated 

approach to the regulation of offshore funds: as to any offering to U.S. residents, an offshore 

fund would be subject to the same restrictions as a domestic private investment company; 

however, the 1940 Act would not be deemed to restrict the scope of any offering to non-U.S. 

residents. 

understand that, regardless of whether the Staff accepts the Regulation S definition, such secondary market 

investors would not constitute U.S. residents for purposes of the Touche Remnant doctrine. 

See Resale of Restricted Securities; Changes to Method of Determining Holding Period of Restricted 

Securities under Rules 144 and 145, Securities Act Release 6862 (April 23, 1990), Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) '84,523 

at p. 80,648. The Commission's formulation of the Touche Remnant doctrine referred to "100 beneficial owners who 

are u.S. residents."
 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 3
 

II. APPLYING TOUCHE REMNANT UNDER 3(c)(7). 

To date, domestic private investment companies have been required to comply with the 

provisions of Section 3(c)(1) under the 1940 Act ("3(c)(1) funds"). As noted above, the 1996 

Improvement Act contemplates a new type of private investment company under 

Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act (a "3(c)(7) fund"). A 3(c)(7) fund wil be able to have an 

unlimited number of security holders, provided that it does not make a public offering and that 

its outstanding securities are owned exclusively by persons who, at the time of acquisition, are 

"qualified purchasers," as defined in the new Section 2(a)(51) of the 1940 Act. Upon 

effectiveness of this portion of the 1996 Improvement Act, the 1940 Act wil recognize two 

types of domëstic private investment companies, 3(c)(l) funds and 3(c)(7) funds.4 

As noted above, the premises of the Touche Remnant doctrine are that in conducting 

any offering to U.S. residents, an offshore fund should be subject to the same rules as a 

domestic private investment company, but that the 1940 Act should not be deemed to restrict 

the scope of any offering to non-U.S. residents. We respectfully submit that these premises 

support an extension of the Touche Remnant doctrine. Accordingly, we ask you to confirm 

that offshore funds wil be permitted to offer and sell its shares without limitation to non-U.S. 

residents, provided that, as to U.S. residents, they conduct their activities in accordance with 

the limitations applicable to either 3(c)(1) funds or 3(c)(7) funds. 

III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOUCHE REMNANT AND REGULATION S.
 

A. Regulation S. In 1990 the Commission adopted Regulation S to clarify the
 

extraterritorial application of the registration provisions of the 1933 Act. 5 Regulation S 

provides generally that any offer or sale that occurs within the United States is subject to 

Section 5 of the 1933 Act and any offer or sale that occurs outside the United States is not 

4 The 1996 Improvement Act contemplates that Section 3(c)(I) will remain in effect, with some 

modification to the "look through" provisions used for computing the number of beneficial owners of a fund's 

outstanding voting securities and the provisions affecting the relationship between Section 3(c)(1) and 

Section 12(d)(I). Certain transition rules apply which enable existing 3(c)(l) funds to become 3(c)(7) funds. 

See Offshore Offers and Sales,' Securities Act Release 6863; Exchange Act Release 27942; 

Investment Company Act Release No. 17458 (April l4, 1990) Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) '84,524 at p. 80,661
 

"Adopting Release"). Regulation S was initially proposed in Securities Act Release No. 6779 (June 

10, 1988), Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) '84,426 at p. 80,209 (hereinafter the" Proposing Release"). It was re-proposed 

in Offshore Offers and Sales, Securities Act Release No. 6838 (July II, 1989), Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) '84,426, 

at p. 80,209 (hereinafter the "Re-Proposing Release"). 

(hereinafter, the 

GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 4 

subject to Section 5. Additionally, Regulation S provides two "safe harbors" for specified 

transactions. Offers and sales meeting all of the conditions of the applicable safe harbor are 

deemed to be outside the United States and, therefore, not subject to Section 5 of the 1933 

Act. 

The underlying principles of these safe harbors and of Regulation S generally are 

comity6 and a territorial approach to the application of Section 5 of the Securities Act. 7 This 

approach focuses on protection of U.S. capital markets and protection of all investors 

acquiring securities in such markets, without regard to the citizenship of such investors. The 

Commission stated: 

Principles of comity and reasonable expectations of participants 

in the global markets justify reliance on laws applicable in 

jurisdictions outside the United States to define disclosure
 

requirements for transactions effected offshore. The territorial 

approach recognizes the primacy of the laws in which a market is 

located. As investors choose their markets, they would choose 

the disclosure requirements applicable to such markets.8
 

Consistent with this approach, certain transactions (including offers and sales by 

foreign private issuers whose securities have no substantial U.S. market interest)9 need satisfy 

6 "The doctrine of comity emphasizes restraint and tolerance to other nations in international affairs. 

Among the values stressed by the doctrine of comity is 'the limited application of sovereign powers to 

extraterritorial events and persons.'" Proposing Release, note 61 at p. 89,128 (citations omitted). 

7 Id.; see also Adopting Release at p. 80,662. 

Proposing Release at p. 89,128. See also Adopting Release at p.80,665.
 

, "Substatial U.S. market interest" is defined under Rule 902(n) of Regulation S to exist, with respect
 

to a class of an issuer's equity securities when "(i) (tlhe securities exchanges and inter-dealer quotation systems in the 

United States in the aggregate constituted the single largest market for such class of securities in the shorter of the 

issuer's prior fiscal year or the period since the issuer's incorpration; or (ii) 20 percent or more of all trading in such 

class of securities took place in, on or through the facilties of securities exchanges and inter-dealer quotation systems 

in the United States and less than 55 'percent of such tracling took place in, on other through the facilities of securities
 

markets of a single foreign country in the shorter of the issuer's prior fiscal year or the period since the issuer's 

incorpration." The term "foreign issuer" is defined in Rule 902(f) of Regulation S to include a corporation or other 

organization incorporated or organized under the laws of any foreign country. In light of these definitions, it is 

virtually certain that any offshore fund would be a foreign issuer whose securities have no substantial U.S. market 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 5
 

only two conditions to comply with the safe harbor: that (a) the offer or sale be made in an 

"offshore transaction"l0 and (b) there be no "directed sellng efforts" II in the United States-i 

These conditions focus on the location of the activity and of the prospective purchaser, but 

generally do not require an examination of the purchaser's nationality or permanent residence. 

Such issuers are not specifically precluded from offering securities to U.S. persons or 

obligated to bar resales to U.S. persons for any particular period of time. 13
 

Certain other transactions (including offers and sales by U.S. issuers which fie reports 

pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) must satisfy additional requirements designed 

to restrict the "flow back" of unregistered securities into the hands of persons whom the 

14 The definition of U.S. person in 

Rule 902(0) of Regulation S is used primarily for purposes of these "flow back" restrictions. 

United States has a strong regulatory interest in protecting. 


interest for purposes of Regulation S. 

io An "offshore transaction" is defined under Rule 902(i) of Regulation S. An offer or sale is made 

in an offshore transaction when, for example, the offer is not made to a person in the United States and at the time 

the buy order is originated, the buyer is outside the United States. 

ii "Directed selling effort" are defined as "any activity undertaken for the purpose of, or that could
 

reasonably be expected to have the effect of, conditioning the market in the United States for any of the securities 

being offered in reliance on this Regulation S. Such activity includes placement of an advertisement in a publication 

with a general circulation in the United States that refers to the offering of securities being made in reliance upon this 

Regulation S." Regulation S, Rule 902(b). In the Investment Funds Institute of Canaa letter, the Staff stated that 

it would generally look to the defintion of "directed selling efforts" under Regulation S for purposes of determining 

when an offshore fud was conditioning the U.S. market. Legitimate U.S. selling activities in connection with the 

sale of securities in a private placement exempt under Section 4(2) or Rule 506 generally wil not result in directed 

sellng efforts. See Adopting Release, note 64 at p. 80,670.
 

12 See Regulation S, Rule 903.
 

13 Of course, Regulation S incorprates the general principle that the safe harbors are not available with 

respect to any tranaction or series of transactions that, although in technical compliance with the relevant rules, "is 

part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration provisions of the (1933) Act." Preliminary Note 2 to Regulation 

S. 

14 On June 27, 1995, the Commission published a release stating its views with respect to certain 

problematic practices in connection'with offers and sales under Regulation S. Securities Act Release No. 7130. 

On October 10, 1996 the Commission adopted revisions to certain forms designed in part to address abusive 

practices in connection with the sale of equity securities by domestic companies in purported Regulation S 

offerings. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37801. We do not believe that either of these developments has 

any bearing on the interpretative advice sought 
 by this letter. 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP
 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 6
 

The Commission clearly intended that Regulation S would be available to registered 

closed-end investment companies and investment companies that are not required to register 

under the 1940 ActY Although, Regulation S, by its terms, only provides relief under the 

1933 Act, the Staff has traditionally looked to 1933 Act concepts in determining whether any 

offering to U.S. investors is a bona fide private placement for purposes of the Touche 16 Remnant doctrine. 


B. The Definition of a "U.S. Resident" under Touche Remnant. As 

noted above, the Staff in Touche Remnant referred to "100 beneficial owners resident in the 

U.S." The Commission's formulation of the doctrine referred to "100 beneficial owners who 

are U. S. residents. " Neither of these formulations provides guidance as to the status of 

investors that are not natural 'persons. At present, offshore funds seeking to comply with the 

15 See Adopting Release at p. 80,664. Preliminar Note 8 to Regulation S provides, "(t)he provisions 

of this Regulation S shall not apply to offers and sales of securities issued by open-end investment companies or unit 

investment truts registered or required to be registered or closed-end investment companes required to be registered, 

but not registered, under the Investment Company Act of 1940." 

16 Neither the Adopting Release nor Reguation S itself addresses the Regulation's interrelationship with 

the Touche Remnant doctrine and existing no-action letters do not provide clear guidance. 

In Alpha Finance Corporation Limited (July 27, 1990), the Staff granted no-action relief where the issuer 

contemplated offering a class of "U.S. Notes" and a class of "Euro-notes." U.S. Notes could not be held by more 

than 100 beneficial owners. Euro-notes were not subject to any such numerical limitation, but would be sold in 

compliance with Regulation S and could not be held by any U.S. person (as defined in Rule 902(0) of Regulation S). 

However, in Win Global Fund (May 14, 1991), Alpha Finance was cited for the proposition that the Staff has not 

expressed an opinion regarding the status of a fQreign investment company under Section 7(d) making an offshore 

offering in reliance upon Regulation S, thus raising a question about the meaning of Alpha Finance. 

MEC Finance USA, Inc. (Oct. 25, 1991), although not involving the Touche Remnant doctrine, is of some 

relevance. MEC Finance 
 involved a proposal by a Delawàre subsidiar of a Japanese corpration to sell medium term 

notes in Europe in accordance with Rule 903 under Reguation S without registering as an investment company under 

the 1940 Act in reliance upon Rule 3a-5 thereunder. The Staff stated, (B)ecause the Euro-Notes wil be issued in a 

public offering to persons outside the United States in accordance with Regulation S, we believe that the Euro-Notes 

are not securities 'issued to or held by the public'. . . ." 

Most recently, in Fiduciary Trust Global Fund (A,iigust 2, 1995), an Irish unit trust proposed to sell shares to 

accounts established by non-U.S. persons with certain U.S. fiduciaries without counting such accounts toward the 100 

U.S. shareholder limit under the Touche Remnant doctrine. In granting no-action relief, the Staff noted that such 

accounts were excluded from the definition of U.S. person by Section 902(0)(2) of Regulation S., 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP 

,¡ 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 7
 

Touche Remnant doctrine have only two sources for guidance, the Regulation S definition of 

U.S. person and language set forth in letters from a handful of applicants seeking no-action 

relief in a period from 1984 through 1988.17 

Given that offshore funds must limit their U.S. investors to avoid violating Section 7(d) 

of the 1940 Act, we believe that it is critical that the industry have an objective standard that 

provides detailed guidance for determining who is a U.S. investor. A subjective approach that 

would require a fund to weigh the U.S. contacts of each shareholder on an on-going basis in 

order to determine whether the fund is required to register under the 1940 Act would be 

unworkable.18 Accordingly, we ask that the Staff confirm that offshore funds may rely upon 

the Regulation S definition of U.S. person for this purpose. 

c. Integration of Onshore and Offshore Transactions. ,An important
 

predicate of the Touche Remnant doctrine is that a public offering by an offshore fund outside 

of the United States wil not be integrated with a private placement of securities within the

United States. 
 19 When Regulation S was adopted, the Commission also amended Regulation D

17 See, e.g. Touche Remnant, Merril Lynch & Co., Inc. (May 12, 1986), G.T. Global Financial 

Services, Inc. (August 2, 1988), and Prudential-Bache Securities Inc. (August 17, 1987). In these letters, the Staff 

appears to have implicitly accepted each applicant's definition of a U.S. resident, but did not expressly approve any 

such definition. These letters generally do not provide the same degree of precision as the Regulation S definition 

and do not recite a uniform standard. We believe that a substantial number of offshore funds use the Regulation S 

definition of U.S. person for purposes of establishing their restrictions upon U.S. investors. 

18 In Mercury Asset Management (Apr. 16, 1993), the Staff stated that the Regulation S definition of 

U.S. person would generally, though not in all cases, be used in determining the extra-territorial reach of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Ths approach seems to require an investment adviser to undertake some analysis 

of the U.S. contacts of its clients. We note that an investment adviser is likely to have more information regarding 

the clients for whom it provides advisory services than an offshore fund wil have regarding its shareholders. 

19 , In Touche Remnant, the Staff based its conclusions in part on the premise that the offering to be 

made in the United States was a private placement made in compliance with the provisions of Rule 506 under 

Regulation D. One aspect of compliance with Rule 506 is determining whether offerings must be integrated in 

accordance with Rule 502(a) under Regulation D.
 

While at least one early no-action letter under the Touche Remnant doctrine, KBS International Ltd. (March 18, 

1985), stated that onshore and offshore offers would be integrated if U.S. jurisdictional means were used directly or 

indirectly in connection with the offshore offer, the Staff subsequently granted no-action relief in numerous letlers 

involving limited use of U.S. jurisdictional mean in connection with the foreign offering (e.g. Merrill Lynch). These 

letters typically contemplated that certain procedures designed to preclude redistribution of the offshore funds' shares 

in the United States would be used. The applicant's letter in G. T. Global provides a detailed description of such 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP
 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

October 24, 1996
 

Page 8
 

to provide that, "(g)enerally, transactions otherwise meeting the requirements of an exemption 

wil not be integrated with simultaneous offerings being made outside the United States in 

compliance with Regulation S. "20 We believe that there is no doubt that for 1933 Act 

purposes, offshore transactions complying with Regulation S wil not be integrated with a U.S. 

private placement. However we believe that there is unnecessary ambiguity as to whether the 

same principles are available to offshore funds for purposes of the Touche Remnant doctrine 

and Section 7(d) of the 1940 ACt.21
 

In light of the foregoing, we ask the Staff to confirm our view that, in the absence of a 

plan or scheme to evade applicable law, a public offering outside the United States by an 

offshore fund relying upon the Touche Remnant doctrine wil not be integrated with a private 

placement inside the United States so long as the offshore offering is conducted in compliance 

with Regulation S. 

If you should have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to call me at 

(617) 570-1167 or Elizabeth Shea Fries at (617) 570-1559. 

Sincerely yours, 

Ge~~enYon 

cc: Elizabeth Shea Fries, Esq.
 

250084.c9 

procedures. In a number of letters, the applicants have cited 1933 Act Release No. 4708 (July 9, 1964) for the 

proposition that the onshore and offshore offerings should not be integrated. See, e.g., G.T. Global. In the Regulation 

S Adopting Release, the Commission stated, "reliance upon Securities Act Release 4708 . . . and the no-action and 

interpretative letters relating thereto is not appropriate for offerings of securities commencing after the ninetieth day 

following publication of this release in the Federal Register." (Citation omitted.) This statement creates some 

question as to the continuing validity of letters such as G.T. Global. 

20 See Note to Rule 502(a). 

21 This ambiguity arises primarily from Win Global, which stated that the Staff has not expressed 

an opinion regarding the status of a foreign 
 investment company under Section 7(d) making an offshore offering in 

reliance upon Regulation S.