Suggestions
Holli Heiles Pandol
Policy Counsel at Carta
Holli Heiles Pandol is the Senior Counsel for Policy at Carta, a company that provides equity management software for startups, employees, and venture capital firms.6 Her role at Carta involves shaping policy related to private funds, financial markets, and capital formation.
Prior to joining Carta, Holli had significant experience in shaping financial and capital markets policy on Capitol Hill.14 She served as a Senior Advisor and Director of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, likely in a government role.3
Holli's educational background includes a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.2 In her current position at Carta, she focuses on various policy areas, including:
- Analyzing and interpreting SEC regulations, such as the Private Fund Adviser rules1
- Providing insights on emerging venture capital fund managers4
- Discussing policy implications of elections on the private market ecosystem5
As Carta's Policy Counsel, Holli frequently contributes to the company's blog and participates in policy-related events. She has written about topics such as the potential impact of SEC regulations on venture capitalists6 and provides regular policy insights for Carta's audience.4
Holli's LinkedIn profile indicates that she is based in the Washington DC-Baltimore Area and has over 500 connections in her professional network.2
Highlights
Yesterday, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, US Treasury finalized new rules to apply anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements to investment advisers, including private equity and venture capital fund advisers. This rule aims to address illicit financing threats involving investment advisers and raises concerns that venture capital funds, in particular, have been a haven for illicit proceeds and are used by foreign actors to access critical technologies.
While many funds have AML protocols in place, this formal regulatory regime will shift the standard, imposing significant compliance obligations particularly for smaller private fund managers. Exempt reporting advisers (ERAs), who are currently not subject to these types of regulatory obligations and exam scrutiny, will be subject to the same requirements of larger, well-resourced SEC-registered investment advisers (RIAs), creating a disproportionate compliance cost and burden.
Here are a few highlights:
New compliance obligations for private funds: ➡ Develop and implement “risk-based” AML program, which includes internal controls and policies, designated AML officer, compliance staffing and training, routine independent audits, and ongoing customer due diligence ➡ File suspicious activity reports (SARs) with FinCEN to report suspicious transactions over $5,000 ➡ Recordkeeping with respect to transmittal of funds ➡ Comply with other Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations that apply to financial institutions
Who must comply: ➡ RIAs and ERAs, including most venture capital and private equity fund managers ➡ Notable exemptions: State-registered advisers, family offices, RIAs who solely register because they are mid-sized or multi-state advisers, and foreign advisers (except as to U.S. business)
Enforcement: ➡ The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will be responsible for examining for compliance, which is consistent with the delegation of exam authority for broker-dealer compliance. ➡ Rules are set to take effect January 1, 2026.
Read more here: https://lnkd.in/evZQFa3G
#venturecapital #privatefunds #AML
The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the power of federal regulators by overturning the nearly 40-year old Chevron doctrine. While courts have historically deferred to agency interpretations of their authority, it will now be on the courts to use their independent judgment to resolve and interpret questions of law when statutes are silent or ambiguous.
How we got here ➡ Chevron responded to a shortcoming that is inherent in the legislative process: Congress often legislates in broad terms and cannot anticipate every issue that could arise, so federal agencies charged with implementing the law often resolve gaps or adapt policies to address changing circumstances. In recent years, legislating has become more difficult—particularly in a divided government with slim margins, so regulators have taken a more prominent role in driving the policy agenda. As the power of the administrative state has increased, so has the scrutiny around it.
Why it matters ➡ The Court’s decision to overturn Chevron is a pivotal shift. We are still in the early days, but here are a few takeaways:
▪ Agency actions: Regulators will have to reevaluate their rulemaking processes to ensure they are operating within the bounds of their congressional authority now that they no longer have wide latitude to interpret the statutes they enforce. Controversial policies that do not have clear or explicit congressional authority will be harder to move forward, which could help provide more stability across administrations.
▪ Role of courts: Courts must interpret ambiguous laws post-Chevron instead of deferring to agency views (though agency opinions can still be considered). This could lead to different outcomes across the 94 district and 13 appellate courts, increasing uncertainty and predictability with respect to agency actions. Forum shopping may become more prevalent, and an expected influx in legal challenges will further strain judicial resources.
▪ Congress: There will be increased pressure on Congress to take more responsibility in the legislative process to be clear as to its statutory intentions and the role of regulators, as there will be more scrutiny on agency efforts to fill gaps or adapt to changing circumstances. Efforts to regulate emerging technologies like crypto and AI just got harder.
▪ Industry: Businesses will have more leverage in interpreting the law and challenging regulatory actions. This could lead to more autonomy and freedom to innovate if regulatory hands are tied. But it could also lead to more uncertainty, resulting in costs and compliance challenges to navigate a shifting regulatory landscape.
▪ Impact on the SEC: This ruling will likely impact financial regulators like the SEC less than other agencies as they have traditionally not relied on Chevron deference, though the agency’s climate change disclosure and ESG initiatives, private fund adviser rules, and efforts to oversee crypto could be impacted.
