A Canadian manager raising into a US fund hits a real asymmetry: the SEC has a VC-adviser exemption Canada's regime lacks. Why the fund lands in Delaware.
A Canadian manager raising into a US-domiciled fund runs into an asymmetry that shapes the whole structure. The SEC built a venture-adviser exemption. Canada did not.
Picture a Toronto-based manager who has just filed as a venture-fund adviser in the United States. The US side feels clean: a proportionate exemption, no assets-under-management ceiling, a path built for early-stage funds. Then counsel asks the question that resets the whole plan: what about the Canadian investors. Suddenly there is a second regime in the room, and it does not mirror the first one at all. That mismatch, far more than tax, is what shapes where these funds get built. The two regimes fail to line up in a specific way, worth understanding before it costs you.
In the United States, an investment adviser generally registers with the SEC, but Congress carved out lighter lanes. A manager who advises only venture capital funds can file as an Exempt Reporting Adviser under the venture capital fund adviser exemption, Rule 203(l)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act, with no cap on assets under management. We walk through that path in detail in the exemption most first-time managers misread.
Canada has no equivalent. Under National Instrument 31-103, the national rule governing registration, a person in the business of advising or managing an investment fund generally has to register, and the categories that matter most for a fund manager are investment fund manager (the IFM) and, for distribution, dealer, usually exempt market dealer (the EMD). There is no clean "this is a venture fund, so the adviser is exempt" door of the kind the SEC built. That single difference does more to shape cross-border structures than anything on the tax side.
Canada's NI 31-103 has no venture-adviser exemption. The SEC does. That asymmetry, not tax, is usually why the fund ends up in Delaware.
Follow the logic and the structure almost designs itself.
A Canadian manager who wants the lighter US adviser treatment domiciles the fund itself in the United States, very often as a Delaware limited partnership, and relies on the US Exempt Reporting Adviser path for the adviser question. That captures the SEC's venture-adviser exemption, which has no AUM ceiling, rather than running headfirst into the heavier Canadian IFM analysis on the adviser side.
This is not regulatory arbitrage in any pejorative sense. It is choosing the regime that built a proportionate path for early-stage funds, while still answering to every rule that applies. The Delaware LP is a workhorse vehicle that LPs on both sides recognize, and the US ERA filing is a real, public filing with real antifraud obligations. The choice is about fit, not avoidance.
The part that trips managers comes next. Domiciling the fund in the US answers the US adviser question. It does not answer the Canadian one, because the moment the manager offers fund interests to investors in Canada, Canadian securities law applies to that distribution regardless of where the fund is domiciled.
Two Canadian questions remain live. First, the offering into Canada has to fit a prospectus exemption, most commonly the accredited investor exemption in National Instrument 45-106, with the required exempt-distribution report filed afterward. Second, the dealer question: is the manager "in the business" of trading securities in a way that triggers EMD registration in the provinces where Canadian investors sit. The business-trigger factors, frequency, solicitation, and compensation among them, are assessed under the NI 31-103 framework. A manager doing a single, unsolicited issuer distribution sits differently from one running a continuous, solicited raise. Where registration is triggered and the manager does not hold it, a registered EMD partner is the common answer, the same lean-distribution move emerging managers use to reach Canadian investors without standing up their own dealer.
So the structure ends up split by design. The US ERA path answers the adviser question. The Canadian prospectus exemption plus the dealer analysis answers the distribution question. Neither one covers the other, and a manager who assumes the Delaware domicile made Canada go away has a gap exactly where the regulator looks.
The disciplined version of all this is procedural. Keep the two analyses separate and resolve each on its own terms. Decide the adviser posture under US rules. Decide the Canadian distribution posture under Canadian rules. Never let a correct answer on one side create a false sense of cover on the other. And, as with a single-jurisdiction raise, keeping the first close clean usually means settling the structure before you layer both regimes at once, rather than improvising the cross-border piece mid-raise.
None of which makes the US-Canada structure exotic, and none of it makes it a loophole. It is a rational response to a real asymmetry: the SEC built a proportionate venture-adviser exemption, Canada's NI 31-103 did not, and so a great many Canadian managers domicile in Delaware and reach Canada through the accredited investor exemption and, where the dealer trigger is hit, a registered partner. Read both regimes. Answer both questions. Treat the border as a load-bearing part of the structure, never a footnote to it.
This is a structural overview, not legal advice. Cross-border structuring depends on your specific facts and the rules in each jurisdiction, which change. Talk to your own counsel and confirm before you build.
Nothing here is an offer to sell a security or investment advice; offers are made only to verified accredited investors via definitive documents.
Sources: Canada: National Instrument 31-103 (Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations), including the investment fund manager and exempt market dealer categories and the business-trigger guidance in 31-103CP; National Instrument 45-106 (Prospectus Exemptions), accredited investor exemption and Form 45-106F1. United States: Investment Advisers Act and Rule 203(l)-1 (venture capital fund adviser exemption); SEC Form ADV (ERA filing).
Field notes on venture building, AI, and capital. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
By subscribing you agree to receive AOS Insights e-mails. We use your address only for this newsletter - see our Privacy Policy.
