Photo of Nathan M. Iacovino

Nathan M. Iacovino focuses his practice on the investment servicing and investment management industries, advising asset-servicing entities, including custodians, transfer agents, and administrators, in connection with various regulatory and transactional matters. He has supported and developed strategies related to the structuring, negotiation, and implementation of domestic and global custody, fund administration, managed account platforms, collateral management, and related servicing arrangements by and among his custodial, investment servicing and managed account platform provider clients and their respective fund, investor, pension plan, and adviser client base.

Nathan also represents mutual fund complexes, asset managers, investment advisers, institutional investors and financial institutions in developing and maintaining financial products while navigating the regulatory landscape.

Nathan’s clients include a wide range of private funds, registered investment companies, transfer agents, banks, financial institutions, institutional investors and investment advisors.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that ICA Section 47(b) creates no implied private right of action for rescission, shifting potential litigation risks for fund governance challenges to SEC enforcement, Section 36(b) claims, and state-law theories.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits Private Rescission Claims Under the Investment Company Act

The SEC’s Division of Examinations has issued a Risk Alert identifying recurring deficiencies in how investment advisers disclose and manage economic conflicts of interest, with observations spanning cash management recommendations, fee practices, Form ADV disclosures, and compliance program design.…

Continue Reading SEC Division of Examinations Publishes Risk Alert on Economic Conflicts of Interest

On July 14, 2025, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the FDIC issued a joint statement addressing risk management and legal expectations applicable to banking organizations engaging in crypto-asset safekeeping. The Statement follows the Agencies’ coordinated rescission earlier this year of interpretive guidance requiring advance supervisory non-objection for crypto activities.[1] While the Statement does not impose new regulatory requirements, it provides important guidance regarding how the Agencies expect banking organizations to manage the legal, operational, technological, and compliance risks associated with crypto-asset safekeeping.…

Continue Reading Federal Banking Regulators Issue Guidance on Risk Management for Crypto-Asset Safekeeping Activities

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has withdrawn supervisory guidance for Board-supervised banks concerning crypto-asset and dollar token activities and Board expectations for these activities. The Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also withdrew joint supervisory statements on crypto-asset activities and exposures.…

Continue Reading Federal Reserve and FDIC Withdraw Crypto-Asset Guidance for Banks; OCC Issues Clarification for Banks

On Aug. 9, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against a U.S. registered investment adviser (the Adviser). This action resulted from the Adviser’s failure to comply with the SEC amended Marketing Rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), adopted to modernize rules that govern investment adviser advertisements…

On April 3, 2024, the Department of Labor (DOL) published in the Federal Register long-awaited final amendments to Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14 (the Amendment), also known as the Qualified Professional Asset Management (QPAM) exemption (the Exemption). The Amendment (i) imposes new notice and reporting requirements and increased financial thresholds, as conditions to relying on…

On Jan. 13, 2021, the Division of Investment Management staff (Staff) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) issued a no-action letter advising that it would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under Section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act), and paragraphs (b)-(f) of Rule 17f-2 thereunder, if certain registered…