The similarities between UCITS V and AIFMD, for the areas of depositary appointment are safekeeping, cash flow monitoring and oversight duties. The most obvious alignment between the two directives is the need for fund managers to appoint a single depositary for each fund under their management.

The dust is just beginning to settle on the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and fund, investment and asset managers are getting into the swing of compliance with it. This is not a Directive that has caught anyone by surprise, so the industry has had time to steady itself and get ready for its implementation. Despite this, there are still some areas that are yet to be resolved at a regulatory level, not least the important issue of segregation at prime brokers.

Fund managers impacted by AIFMD (the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive) should begin collecting static data from their counterparties to start populating the Annex IV report so as to avoid a rush when the deadline approaches.

Firms which had received authorisation as AIFMs from their home state regulators by 22 July 2014 are required to file Annex IV reports no later than 31 October 2014. Other affected firms can expect to file Annex IV no later than 31 January 2015, or even April 2015.

Whilst AIFMD (the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive) received an initially unwelcoming reception when it was first mooted, as the story has evolved it became clear that there were also several opportunities within it, not least for certain jurisdictions in their transposition of it.

Regulators in Europe need to provide private equity and other alternative investment managers with greater clarity about what constitutes reverse solicitation versus active marketing under AIFMD (the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive).