kaal:claim:2998097-002
The 2004 registration rule failed in court because the term client was not defined in the Investment Advisers Act, leaving the SEC without authority to fix its meaning, and the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule in Goldstein as arbitrary rulemaking.
Source quote, verbatim
Because the term "client" had not otherwise been defined in the Investment Advisers Act, the SEC had no authority to determine the meaning of the term.
From
Wulf A. Kaal, Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016 (2017), II.2 Evolution of the Investment Advisers Act Exemption, p. 10
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998097 · source PDF
Cite as
Wulf A. Kaal, Private Investment Fund Regulation - Theory and Empirical Evidence from 1998 to 2016 (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998097
Holds when
Classification
failuresupport: arguedfailure: Undefined statutory term defeats agency rulemakingfamily: definitional-ambiguitysecurities-lawprivate-fundsdynamic-regulation
Related claims
Verify
The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 0955054f49c7011d33c285579bb046e6b284e42755b10fd2546a728c202669d5. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/9a6736e60595723a...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2998097-002.md | sha256sum