With the arrival of May, all U.S. fund managers who are required to file Form PF
will have filed at least once, and some will have filed Form CPO-PQR as well. Both forms will have assumed their positions as fixtures on the regulatory landscape. There is scant time for rest, however, as the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) in Europe looms on the horizon – even for U.S. managers. The AIFMD is Europe’s response to the financial crisis of 2008 and is analogous to Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Act in the U.S. The AIFMD is more broad-ranging in scope, but this article focuses only on one key aspect: the imposition of standardized reporting requirements for Alternative Investment Fund Managers. Owing to the fact that Forms PF and CPO-PQR were developed in consultation with European and other global regulatory authorities, there are many similarities across the forms. However, there are also significant differences. U.S. fund managers required to report under the AIFMD will not be able to simply recycle information reported on Form PF or Form CPO-PQR for AIFMD reporting purposes. Instead, they must reevaluate, recalculate and repackage key data points for European reporting. In a guest article, Doug Schwenk, S. Chris Church and David Vaughan help private fund managers understand the various reporting demands imposed by the AIFMD and compare such reporting requirements with those applicable to Form PF. Schwenk is a former hedge fund COO and currently the CEO of Advise Technologies; Church is part of the implementation team at Advise; and Vaughan is a partner at Dechert LLP. For background on the AIFMD, see “Former OCIE Chief Lori Richards and other PwC Partners and Managers Discuss the Mechanics of the AIFMD and Its Impact on Marketing by U.S. Hedge Fund Managers
,” Hedge Fund Law Report, Vol. 6, No. 10 (Mar. 7, 2013); and “Marketing Hedge Funds to European Union Investors in the Post-AIFMD Era
,” Hedge Fund Law Report, Vol. 5, No. 5 (Feb. 2, 2012).