BVI approved manager regime extended to qualifying funds in recognised jurisdictions
The British Virgin Islands’ (BVI’s) approved manager regime for investment managers and advisers — introduced in December 2012 by the Investment Business (Approved Manager) Regulations 2012 — has had a successful first year, becoming increasingly popular for its straightforward and low-cost application process and ‘lighter-touch’ regulatory requirements.
The BVI has now introduced amendments with effect from 2 January 2014, pursuant to the Investment Business (Approved Managers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2013.
The amendments will allow investment managers or advisers approved by the BVI Financial Services Commission as an approved investment manager to take advantage of this lighter-touch regime to manage qualifying funds in a wide range of other recognised jurisdictions, including the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Ireland, Luxembourg and the UK…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Conyers Dill & Pearman briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Conyers Dill & Pearman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Conyers Dill & Pearman
The Supreme Court has now “clarified”, in reality re-formulated, the applicable test for determining whether a particular contractual provision should be struck down as being a penalty.
An appeal to claw back redemption payments has been opposed.