March 6, 1989
TO: SEC RULES MEMBERS NO. 16-89
CLOSED-END FUND MEMBERS NO. 14-89
RE: SEC PROPOSES RULE EXPANDING TIME PERIOD FOR SELECTION
OF ACCOUNTANTS UNDER SECTION 32(a)(1)
__________________________________________________________
Section 32(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
makes it unlawful for any registered management investment
company to file with the SEC any financial statement signed or
certified by an independent public accountant unless such
accountant was selected by a vote, cast in person, of a majority
of the company's disinterested directors. This provision further
requires that the selection take place at a meeting held either
(1) within thirty days before or after the beginning of the
fiscal year, or (2) before the annual meeting of shareholders in
that year.
A fund that does not hold an annual meeting of shareholders
because such a meeting is not required by the state law under
which the fund is organized must, under section 32(a)(1), select
its accountant at a board of directors meeting held within thirty
days before or after the beginning of the fund's fiscal year.
Because fund complexes typically establish funds with staggered
fiscal year-ends and have overlapping boards of directors that
meet jointly, strict application of this section could in some
complexes create the need to hold almost monthly board meetings.
Such scheduling also could limit detailed review of the
accountant's performance by the audit committee and the board's
review of the audit committee's recommendations. In light of
these considerations, a number of complexes have obtained
individual exemptive orders under section 6(c) permitting
expansion of this "60-day window." In June 1988, the Institute
requested that the SEC issue a rule codifying generally the
results reached in these individual exemptive orders as well as
no-action relief pending rulemaking action.
Attached is a copy of SEC Release No. IC-16842, which
proposes a new rule 32a-3 expanding the 60-day window under
certain circumstances (Attachment A). Also attached is a copy of
the favorable response of the Division of Investment Management
to the Institute's no-action request (Attachment B).
Proposed Rule 32a-3
Proposed rule 32a-3 would expand the 60-day window with
respect to a fiscal year for any registered management investment
company that is organized in a jurisdiction that does not require
annual meetings of shareholders and does not hold such a meeting
in that fiscal year. The extent of the expansion of this window
would depend upon whether the fund were part of a family of funds
and whether the funds in the family had staggered fiscal year-
ends.
If the fund were part of a family in which not all funds
had identical fiscal year-ends, the accountant could be selected
at a board of directors meeting held within 90 days before or
after the beginning of the fund's fiscal year (the "180-day
window"). On the other hand, a fund that was either not part of
a family of funds or was part of a family each of whose members
had identical fiscal year-ends could select its accountant at a
board of directors meeting held within 30 days before or 90 days
after the beginning of its fiscal year (the "120-day window").
The Release notes that the rule as proposed would not apply
to companies that hold annual shareholder meetings and requests
comment on whether such companies need to use the expanded
windows. In addition, the Release cautions that rule 32a-3, if
adopted, would supersede all prior Commission orders exempting
registered management investment companies from the 60-day
window.
No-Action Relief
The Division of Investment Management states in the
attached no-action response that it will not recommend
enforcement action regarding registered management investment
companies that do not comply with the time periods of section
32(a)(1), provided that the companies comply with all of the
applicable conditions of proposed rule 32a-3. This no-action
position will be effective only until the effective date of rule
32a-3, if adopted, or until the date of modification or
withdrawal of the proposal.
We will keep you informed of further developments.
Kathy D. Ireland
Assistant General Counsel
Attachments
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union