Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Biography

Rachael has over 18 years’ experience counseling registered investment companies (including mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and closed-end funds) and their boards regarding all aspects of the 1940 Act and related securities laws. Rachael counsels registered investment companies and their boards on all relevant matters, including with respect to Section 15(c) contract approvals and renewals, oversight of multi-manager and sub-advisory relationships, disclosure issues, fund governance, ESG matters, cybersecurity and the launch and reorganizations of funds and fund complexes. She also helps clients develop policies and procedures in connection with new SEC rules and regulations, as well as advise independent directors on their duties and responsibilities related to these new rules.

*Rachael is not admitted to practice in Washington, D.C.

Education
  • Washington University School of Law (J.D.)
  • Duke University Fuqua School of Business (M.B.A.)
  • Wellesley College (B.A., cum laude)
Bar & Court Admissions
  • New York
Professional Qualifications
  • American Bar Association
  • New York City Bar Association, Regulation of Investment Management Committee
Awards & Honors
  • Thomson Reuters "Stand-Out Lawyer" (2025)
  • Chambers USA (2019)
  • Recommended by The Legal 500 U.S. (2024, 2026)
Representative Matters
  • Serves as Trust and Board counsel to a number of multiple series trusts, providing all services required, including but not limited to, annual fund registration updates, fund reorganizations, proxies, mutual fund to ETF conversions and assistance with implementation of new SEC rules.
  • Serves as Trust counsel to an ETF complex, providing all services required, including but not limited to, all matters relating to the organizational meeting, fund launches, annual fund registration updates, fund reorganizations, proxies, mutual fund to ETF conversions and assistance with implementation of new SEC rules.
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
SEC Staff Issues No-Action Relief Permitting Fund Directed Voting Programs
On September 29, 2026, the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) Division of Investment Management (the “Staff”) issued a no-action letter to the Mutual Fund Directors Forum stating that it would not recommend enforcement action under Rules 14a-3(a), 14a-4(d)(2), 14a-4(d)(3), 14a-4(f), 14a-6(o), 14a-10, and 14a-12(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), if an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), or that elects to be regulated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act, or, as applicable, a separate series thereof (each, a “fund”) implements a directed shareholder voting program (the “Directed Voting Program”). Under a Directed Voting Program, a shareholder could voluntarily provide a revocable standing voting instruction directing that its shares be voted in accordance with the recommendations approved by a fund’s board, including unanimous approval by the fund’s independent directors, subject to a number of structural protections. The Directed Voting Program must be (i) approved by the fund’s board, including unanimous approval by the independent directors, and (ii) subjected to periodic board review and reapproval at least every three years that such program continues to be in the best interests of Fund shareholders. The Directed Voting Program would not apply to contested director elections and changes to the fund’s investment advisory agreement with its primary adviser that requires a shareholder vote. Shareholders participating in a Directed Voting Program must also be given the ability to exclude from their standing voting instructions votes on: (1) fund mergers that require shareholder approval under the Investment Company Act, applicable state law, applicable exchange listing requirements or the fund’s organizational documents and (2) proposals to adopt or increase fees paid under a Rule 12b-1 plan. A  fund would file with the SEC material describing the Directed Voting Program under cover of Schedule 14A and would subsequently file any material changes to the Program in the same manner. Participation in the Directed Voting Program must be available to all retail shareholders at no cost and must be voluntary. Shareholders participating in the Directed Voting Program would retain the ability to override the standing instructions by using the proxy material received for a particular meeting. A fund would have full disclosure of the Directed Voting Program on its website and through prominent disclosure in the relevant proxy statement. Annually, participating shareholders would receive a reminder of their opt-in status and selection.  This reminder would not be sent at a time when there is a proxy in progress.  The no-action relief may offer fund complexes a potential means of reducing proxy solicitation expenses and increasing voting participation by permitting shareholders to provide standing voting instructions for certain types of matters, thereby helping funds avoid the delays, costs, and logistical challenges frequently associated with obtaining shareholder approval.  * * * * * * * * If you would like further information regarding the issues discussed in this Client Alert or related matters, please contact the lawyer at Sullivan & Worcester LLP with whom you regularly consult, or any of the lawyers listed above. This Client Alert is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
SEC Proposes New Regulation E-Delivery
On July 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed a new rule, Regulation E-Delivery, that would expand the ability of issuers, including registered investment companies, investment advisers, and broker-dealers, to use electronic delivery (“e-delivery”) to satisfy information delivery requirements under the federal securities law.  If adopted as proposed, Regulation E-Delivery would broadly address the e-delivery of “covered information” by “covered entities” to “covered recipients” (each as described further below) and provides the requirements and conditions for the delivery of regulatory information electronically without first obtaining investors’ affirmative consent. The proposed rule is now available for public comment.  Public comments are due by September 21, 2026. Proposed Regulation E-Delivery Currently, many required regulatory disclosures and reports are delivered in paper format, unless the investor or shareholder affirmatively elects otherwise.  The SEC proposed the rule to make e-delivery the default method based on its understanding about investors’ use of and preferences for electronic media and to continue toward a regulatory framework more suitable for the modern era.  If adopted, Regulation E-Delivery would be the SEC’s primary rule addressing e-delivery and would supersede the SEC’s current guidance-based e-delivery framework. As noted above, proposed Regulation E-Delivery would apply to the e-delivery of “covered information” by “covered entities” to “covered recipients.”  The proposing release defines those terms generally as: Covered information: any information required to be delivered to a covered recipient under the federal securities laws. Covered entities: any person that has an obligation to deliver covered information to a covered recipient under the federal securities laws. Covered recipients: any current or prospective customer, client, investor, security holder, counterparty, or similar recipient of information.  The proposed rule does not make any distinction between retail and institutional clients and investors, although the SEC has asked for public comment on this issue. As proposed, Regulation E-Delivery would permit, but not require, covered entities to use e-delivery as the default method of delivery for covered information.  Generally, a covered entity would be able to rely on the proposed rule where: (1) the covered recipient has provided an electronic address; (2) the covered entity has provided a prominent disclosure to the covered recipient that it will send covered information to the electronic address provided; and (3) the covered recipient has not opted out of e-delivery. Under the proposed rule, the permissible method of e-delivery would depend on whether the covered information includes personal financial information (“PFI”).  If covered information does not include PFI, direct delivery to a recipient’s electronic address, either attached or included in the body of an email, would be permitted.  If covered information includes PFI, a covered entity may not deliver this information directly to an electronic address but would instead have to deliver a statement of availability to the recipient’s electronic address, which would include a link to a website where the covered recipient could access the required information. The proposed rule also details other requirements and conditions for satisfying Regulation E-Delivery, including the process for investors to receive paper reports, opt out of e-delivery, and how investors may update their electronic addresses.  The proposed rule also would require covered entities to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and remediate failed e-delivery, which would include detecting an invalid or inoperable electronic address via bounce-backs or other means.  If a failed e-delivery is identified, the covered entity must promptly take reasonable remediation steps. Additional Observations We note the following: The SEC also is proposing to rescind Rule 30e-3 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.  That rule provides alternative methods for registered investment companies to satisfy their shareholder-report-transmission requirements.  The SEC also is proposing to amend certain rules in Regulations 14A and 14C and Rule 14d-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which address the dissemination of proxy materials and tender-offer materials. The proposed rules would not change any timing requirements or regulatory deadlines under the federal securities laws, such that, regardless of the e-delivery method used, the covered entity would be required to deliver the covered information no later than the date by which the information is currently required to be delivered. As noted above, the proposed rules would require entities to adopt written policies and procedures to identify and remediate failed e-delivery.  Registered investment companies and investments advisers likely would have to draft and adopt new compliance policies and procedures to account for Regulation E-Delivery, rather than rely on current rules, in order to ensure that they have the ability to take reasonable remediation steps, including obtaining new electronic addresses or delivering the covered information in paper format until the recipient provides a new electronic address. If the rules are adopted as proposed, investors who currently receive regulatory information in paper format would first receive two paper notices if they would be transitioned to e-delivery, with such notices including the ability to opt out of e-delivery.  The first paper notice would need to be delivered at least 180 days before the transition, with a paper follow-up notice delivered at least 30 days before the transition. The range of regulatory disclosures and reports available for electronic delivery under the proposed rule is broad, including prospectuses, annual and semi-annual shareholder reports, proxy statements, Form CRS disclosures, and Form ADV Part 2 brochures.  For a fuller list of covered information, please see Appendix A below. For More Information This Client Alert has been prepared by John Hunt, a Partner, Rachael Schwartz, a Partner, and Mike Davalla, Counsel, in the Investment Management practice group of the international law firm of Sullivan & Worcester LLP.  For more information, Mr. Hunt may be reached in our Boston office by calling +1 (617) 338-2961 or our London office by calling +44 (0)20 7448 1000, or by email at jhunt@sullivanlaw.com; Ms. Schwartz may be reached in our New York office by calling +1 (212) 660-3069 or by email at rschwartz@sullivanlaw.com; Mr. Davalla may be reached in our Boston office by calling +1 (617) 338-2804 or our Washington, D. C. office by calling +1 (202) 775-2200, or by email at mdavalla@sullivanlaw.com. This Client Alert is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Appendix A – Covered Information Under the E-Delivery Proposal Type of Covered Entity Type of Covered Information Investment Companies Fund prospectuses Annual and semi-annual shareholder reports Rule 19a-1 notices Proxy statements and information statements Tender offer statements (for applicable investment companies) Investment Advisers Form ADV Part 2 brochures Marketing and testimonial disclosures Agency cross transaction disclosures Custody rule account statement notices Broker-Dealers Trade confirmations Form CRS disclosures Reg S-AM disclosures Other Issuers Issuer prospectuses Annual reports to security holders Proxy statements and information statements Tender offer statements and solicitation/recommendation statements Offering circulars * As noted in the proposing release, the above list is non-exhaustive, as the definition of “covered information” in the proposed rule may include disclosures not listed here but that may be required under, for example, Regulation Best Interest, as well as disclosure that be required of covered entities in the future under applicable laws and regulations.
Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026
Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester announced that its practice groups and attorneys have been ranked and recommended in the Legal 500 United States 2026. The firm’s Real Estate practice was newly ranked Tier 1 in the “Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m)” category and the firm maintained rankings across a variety of practice areas. Partners Nicole Crum and John Steiner were newly ranked as Leading Partners and Ryan Rosenblatt as a Next Generation Partner. Peers and more than 300,000 corporate counsel were surveyed and interviewed globally in the past 12 months to assess law firms’ overall visibility and reputation, culminating in detailed rankings and editorial. The Legal 500 is an independent guide, and firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit. Sullivan's lawyers received the following rankings: Leading Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Outstanding Lawyers Nationwide Benjamin Armour - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) Ameek Ashok Ponda - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)  Nicole Crum - Mutual/registered/exchange-traded funds Lewis Segall - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) John Steiner - Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m) Douglas Stransky - International Tax Joel Telpner - Fintech Next Generation Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Up-and-Coming Lawyers Nationwide Ryan Rosenblatt - General commercial disputes – mid-market ($250-500m) Sarah Wellings - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) Practice Areas Ranked and Attorneys Recognized Corporate Governance “Our lead partner, Nicole Crum, who leads the investment industry practice, is exceptional. She demonstrates strong industry knowledge yet is very personable and anticipates what we need to know or what we should consider doing to handle any matter. The team roll up their sleeves and provide recommendations as to how we as a board should handle any matter. Strong service commitment and work ethic!” “The team we have at Sullivan & Worcester has served our company for years and knows the management team, staff as well as our board members. They are extremely responsive and proactive and anticipate what we should be aware of, concerned about, excited about, and how to handle oversight, processes and protocols to ensure we are carrying out our fiduciary duties. The partners are experts in this industry.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: Howard Berkenblit, David Leahy Dispute Resolution/General Commercial Disputes “Diverse skillset. Client centric. Transparency. Urgency provided on all matters.” “I have worked with Gerry Silver for over 15 years and have found his pragmatic approach to complex matters refreshing. He understands our business, culture and market, and will give me his opinion in a digestible manner.” Next Generation Partner: Ryan Rosenblatt Recommended Lawyers: Gerry Silver, Patrick Dinardo, Laura Steinberg, Michael Sullivan, Amy Zuccarello, Erika Todd, Christopher Shields, Anna Lea McNerney Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and Retirement Plans: Design “The level of expertise is top shelf. David Guadagnoli seems to know all of ERISA and IRS rulings.” “David Guadagnoli and Amy Sheridan both have superior knowledge in their respective areas. I value the ability to raise issues whether simple or complex. The firm takes the same diligent approach across all spectrums of complexity.” Recommended Lawyers: David Guadagnoli, Amy Sheridan Environment: Transactional Fintech “Sullivan & Worcester is one of the finest firms with which I have worked.” “The lawyers are excellent, and the firm consistently provides the highest quality of customer service.” Leading Partner: Joel Telpner Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman, Benjamin Armour, Scott Kaufman, Harvey Bines, Christopher Curtis Land Use/Zoning Recommended Lawyers: Gregory Sampson, Ashley Brooks, Victor Baltera, Karen Kepler, Ashley Tan M&A: Corporate and Commercial: Venture Capital and Emerging Companies Recommended Lawyers: Scott Kaufman, Lewis Segall, Benjamin Armour, Michael Student M&A: Middle-Market ($0-250m) “The partner Lewis Segall has been working with our company for 15 years and we have a good working relationship with him. He knows our history and very attentive to our needs.” “Lewis Segall is very attentive to our needs. We very much value him.” Leading Partners: Benjamin Armour, Lewis Segall Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman Mutual/Registered/Exchange-Traded Funds “Sullivan & Worcester's practice is defined by its deep expertise in investment funds and its ability to deliver clear, commercially grounded advice across the full fund lifecycle—from formation and structuring to regulatory compliance and complex transactions.” “The team is highly experienced, collaborative, and excel in efficient execution and clear communication.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: David Leahy, David Mahaffey, Rachael Schwartz Real Estate Leading Partner: John Steiner Recommended Lawyers: Ashley Brooks, Karen Kepler, Gregory Sampson, Sharon Leifer, Louis Monti, Spencer Stone, Ashley Tan Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) “We have built multiple complex and sophisticated REIT platforms over the years and worked with many top-tier REIT specialists, but Sullivan’s REIT practice is by far the best, with Sarah Wellings.” Leading Partner: Ameek Ashok Ponda Next Generation Partner: Sarah Wellings Recommended Lawyers: Angela Gomes, Louis Monti, Shu Wei, Cameron Cosby International Tax “The international collaboration with S&W is exceptional.” “What really stands out is their willingness to engage, openness to different ideas and opinions, clearly expressed expectations, and clients' objectives.” Leading Partner: Douglas Stransky Recommended Lawyers: Lewis Greenwald, Eric Rietveld Tax > US Taxes: Contentious Recommended Lawyers: Richard Jones, David Nagle, Daniel Ryan, Caroline Kupiec Tax > US Taxes: Non-Contentious “Sarah Wellings is, quite simply, the best lawyer we have ever worked with. Her expertise extends far beyond tax and REIT matters, encompassing governance, financing, and complex commercial issues. Decades of experience and technical mastery make her an indispensable partner. Sarah is our central point of contact who makes everything seamless. Her in-house counsel background gives her a unique client perspective: she anticipates needs, solves problems before they arise, and delivers concise, well-structured updates that simplify even the most intricate issues. She coordinates effortlessly with all parties involved. Her judgment is exceptional. Sarah strikes the perfect balance between comprehensive academic rigor and practical, business-oriented advice. She combines technical REIT/tax excellence with commercial instincts, ensuring every recommendation is both legally sound and strategically smart. Her ability to translate complex law into clear, actionable guidance is unmatched. Sarah is incredibly responsive without ever sacrificing quality. She treats our matters as her own, demonstrating a rare ownership mindset and collaborative spirit. Her integrity is uncompromising, giving us absolute confidence in her counsel. In short, Sarah Wellings defines legal excellence: reliable, commercially minded, and client-focused. Working with her feels like being in the safest possible hands; she consistently exceeds expectations and orchestrates complex transactions with clarity and precision.” Recommended Lawyers: Ameek Ashok Ponda, Richard Jones, Douglas Stransky, Sarah Wellings About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier international law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best-in-class client service.
Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Recognized as Thomson Reuters Stand-Out Lawyers
Sullivan & Worcester is pleased to announce that eight of our attorneys have been named Thomson Reuters "Stand-Out Lawyers" for 2025. This recognition is based on direct nominations from senior legal buyers worldwide who identify the lawyers that have made a lasting impact through their exceptional service, expertise and client commitment. Lawyers are recognized for their ability to enhance client satisfaction, increase client advocacy, expand market share, foster engagement and contribute to overall profitability. The following Sullivan attorneys have been recognized: Domenick Pugliese Douglas Stransky Geoffrey Wynne Gerry Silver Michael Dyson Rachael Schwartz Truman Bidwell Sam Fowler-Holmes

Rachael L. Schwartz