PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 7, 1995
Investment Company Act Amendments of 1995 - Amends the Investment Company Act of 1940 with respect to corporate governance to change from 60 percent to at least a majority the required portion of the board of directors of a registered investment company which are not interested persons of the company. Modifies the guidelines for: (1) investment advisory and underwriting contracts; (2) selection of accountants and auditors; (3) changes in investment policy; (4) information filing; (5) voting procedures; and (6) the definition of a majority vote. States that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shall permit the use of a prospectus which makes an offer in the form of advertisement for securities issued by a registered investment company. Revises the guidelines for the: (1) maintenance and preservation of investment company records for the SEC; and (2) annual reports to the SEC and shareholders. Authorizes the SEC to exempt a registered open-end investment company ("exempted company") from specified statutory prescriptions, including breach of fiduciary duty. Mandates that the board of directors of such "exempted company" shall be composed of persons at least two-thirds of whom are not interested persons of the company. Sets forth the parameters of the management contract for such exempted company's investment manager, which shall require the manager to perform, or make provision for, all services necessary to the exempted company's operations and the distribution of its securities in return for a single fee covering all but certain services and expenses. Designates such an exempted company a unified fee investment company. Narrows the strictures governing deceptive or misleading investment company names to declare unlawful the adoption of a name which is materially deceptive or misleading (the current standard is "deceptive or misleading"). Repeals the SEC's authority to bring an action in a U.S. district court for injunctive relief against a violator of such prohibition. Modifies the guidelines that exempt: (1) investment companies from the Act; and (2) certain kinds of companies from the limitations on acquisition by investment companies of securities of other specific businesses.
People & committees
Rep. Fields, Jack [R-TX-8] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E868)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1495 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1495 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1495 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1495 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.