SEC’s Scrutiny of Greenwashing Risks Continues with Modifications to the ’40 Act Names Rule

October 4, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

The final rule release states that the use of ESG-related terms such as “sustainable” or “green” presents “particular investor protection concerns,” as “[f]unds that consider ESG factors in their investment strategies comprise a thematic area that entails unique considerations, and that involves the use of terminology that may be especially powerful in fund names to attract investors.”

The SEC originally proposed a rule change that would have made it “materially deceptive” to include ESG factors in the name of an “integration fund” that integrates ESG factors into its investment process, but not in a way that is determinative compared to other factors. However, the SEC omitted this prohibition in the final rule and expressly decided not to adopt the proposed approach “at this time.” The removal of the integration fund concept from the Names Rule may presage that the corresponding concept in the still-pending ESG fund/adviser disclosure rule may be pared back similarly (the proposing release can be found here). We will monitor those developments accordingly. If you have any questions about the names of ESG funds your firm manages or the SEC’s broader ESG-related regulation of investment funds and advisers, please contact us.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Sustainability

February 19, 2025

Wind energy projects along the coasts are facing uncertainty due to President Trump’s Presidential Memorandum1 issued on January 20, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” This Memorandum introduces substantial policy changes that impact both onshore and offshore wind development.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

January 24, 2025

Beginning on Monday, there have been a flurry of executive orders from the Trump administration reversing Biden-era energy policies, emphasizing oil and gas production, lifting the liquified natural gas (LNG) export permitting pause and withdrawing from all accords and commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) including the Paris climate agreement. The orders also target electric vehicles (EVs), wind energy, international climate aid and the use of the social cost of carbon in agency decision making. For close tracking of these orders and more to come, visit the Akin Trump Executive Order tracker. Concurrently, President Trump’s nominees for the Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have each passed their initial rounds of committee confirmation votes, and now await votes before the Senate floor.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

January 10, 2025

In the final days of his term, President Joe Biden has taken significant steps to solidify his administration’s climate legacy. The administration finalized rules for various clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, these rules, intended to stimulate clean energy advancements through 2032, face opposition from Congressional Republicans, who are considering scaling back or repealing the credits through budget reconciliation.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

December 19, 2024

The twilight hours of the Biden administration and the 118th Congress have been marked by intense legislative and regulatory activity, underscored by President-elect Trump’s derailment of last-minute congressional budget talks, and stalled progress on energy permitting reforms.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

December 11, 2024

The Biden administration’s environmental policies and the future of infrastructure projects are facing pivotal legal challenges and political shifts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit questioned the viability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 power plant emissions rule, particularly its reliance on carbon capture technology, while the 6th Circuit overturned the EPA’s rejection of Kentucky’s smog plan, which comes only three days after the EPA issued its defense of its “good neighbor” smog control plan responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to halt its implementation in June. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s handling of the first National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) case in some time, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, could substantially alter the scope of environmental reviews, with potential immediate implications for the oil & gas industry. These judicial reviews may be influenced by a potential change in administration and Congress, as Trump-era officials, including Vivek Ramaswamy, advocate for scaling back NEPA regulations to expedite infrastructure projects. Additionally, the Department of Energy’s recent clarity on liquified natural gas (LNG) export authorizations underscores the broader tension between expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and adhering to environmental regulations amidst a polarized political and legal landscape.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

October 3, 2024

NYC Climate Week included over 900 events with an estimated 100,000 participants swarming the City. While indicative of growing interest in climate action, some note that the record turnout foreshadows a smaller presence at COP 29 in Azerbaijan.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

September 19, 2024

Recent legislative and regulatory developments reflect ongoing tensions between environmental policies and economic priorities in the U.S. energy landscape. The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s advancement of three resolutions targeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on power plants, vehicle emissions and air quality standards marks a broader Republican effort to counter President Biden’s environmental agenda, though these resolutions face likely vetoes. In contrast, House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled openness to retaining certain green energy tax credits, reflecting a pragmatic approach as some Republican districts benefit from these investments. Simultaneously, bipartisan efforts to boost critical mineral production, led by Senators Hickenlooper and Tillis, aim to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese imports, while the White House has raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar products, a move seen as both protective of domestic industries and potentially disruptive to supply chains. Legal battles continue, as seen in the judicial blocking of the Interior Department’s methane rule in five states and ongoing litigation over EPA’s cross-state pollution rule, which the agency has been allowed to revise. Meanwhile, grid operators have expressed concerns that the EPA’s carbon emissions rule could threaten power plant operations, pushing for legal revisions to protect grid reliability. Together, these developments reflect the broader debate over balancing environmental regulations with economic and energy security concerns.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

September 12, 2024

After a recent permitting reform bill was passed out of a Senate Committee, House Republicans took steps to draft their own permitting reform legislation. Rep. Westerman (R- AR) held a hearing to discuss his draft bill, which most notably places limitations on the environmental permitting process for energy projects. This comes as both parties position energy policy as a key election issue, with Vice President Harris recognizing a role for oil and gas production during the Presidential debate in response to Republican criticism of her climate policies. Meanwhile, former President Trump vowed to pull back unspent dollars approved for greenhouse gas reduction and energy transition projects under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA has already spurred significant renewable energy investment, particularly in rural electric co-ops using the funds to replace coal generation with clean energy and battery storage.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.