Become an EMPEA Member Today

Industry and Regulatory Advocacy

EMPEA advocates for regulatory regimes that promote a sustainable and competitive private equity industry in emerging markets.

EMPEA has submitted commentary to regulatory authorities when legislation threatens the availability of private equity capital in developing countries. EMPEA has regularly advised against rules that are prohibitively burdensome for fund managers and investors, and are inconsistent with standard global practices.

More specifically, EMPEA has acted on behalf of the private equity industry against regulations that:

  • Limit the ability of local investors to participate in private equity funds
  • Impose the same requirements on funds marketed through private placement as those that are offered publicly
  • Discourage international investors from accessing emerging market-focused funds
  • Require intermediaries to chaperone the relationship between fund managers and sophisticated investors
  • Require public disclosure of Limited Partners, quarterly audited accounts, and other proprietary information

Through EMPEA’s advocacy work, regulatory bodies are more cognizant of adverse consequences of particular regulations on the flow of development capital into emerging economies.


Recent Regulatory Submissions

On January 8, 2015, EMPEA drafted a response to ESMA’s Call for Evidence on the AIFMD passport and third country AIFMs. We believe this is an important matter and incorporated comments in our response on behalf of our members who have experience with the issue.

You can read our response here.

Past Regulatory Submissions

EMPEA’s activities on regulatory issues are responses to solicitations for consultation by regulatory authorities or recommendations by members to engage. With the guidance of EMPEA’s Legal and Regulatory Council, EMPEA has submitted the following commentary:


  • European Commission, August 2011: arguing that the European Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive 1) deprived European institutional investors from accessing emerging markets, 2) reduced the ability of European-based funds to raise capital outside of the EU, and 3) discriminated against developing country-based managers.
  • European Securities and Markets Authority, September 2011: with the European Venture Capital Association, EMPEA proposed a lighter touch regime on depositary requirements for private equity funds.


  • Monetary Authority of Singapore, October 2011: commenting on proposed amendments to the regulatory regime for fund managers. EMPEA discouraged burdensome requirements  for small private equity funds headquartered in Singapore, which is a hub for emerging market fund managers.
  • Securities and Exchange Board of India, August 2011: advising on draft rules for Alternative Investment Funds. EMPEA informed SEBI that 1) ambiguity in the regulation could unintentionally dampen investment in India, and 2) forced and rigid distinctions between investment strategies do not align with the flexible commercial approach that successful private equity funds employ.

Middle East

  • United Arab Emirates Securities and Commodities Authority, February 2011: responding to Draft Investment Fund regulations. EMPEA cautioned that the existing legislation would preclude the majority of emerging market private equity funds from fundraising in the UAE, and thus limit the ability of local investors to participate in emerging market private equity funds.
  • Capital Markets Authority of Kuwait, August 2011: advising the Authority that it is inappropriate to impose the same requirements on privately marketed funds as those that are offered publicly,  and is therefore impossible for most emerging market private equity funds to comply.