NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Daniel Nygaard Nyberg, Karoline Ulleland Hoel, Ole Andenæs and Jens Fredrik Bøen, Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS
not yet indicated when the amending directive will be implemented in Norwegian law. Additionally, the rules in ELTIF 2.0 will address the shortcomings of ELTIF 1.0 and thus contribute to an even stronger exception to the rules on loan origina - tion. As mentioned in 2.10 Anticipated Changes for Funds , a proposal to implement the ELTIF 2.0 Regula - tion in Norway has been put forward by the Ministry of Finance. Other relevant exemptions There are other general exemptions that funds and entities might avail themselves of, where the most relevant exemption in most cases is: (i) conducting financing activities on an isolated or one-off basis (where financing is not otherwise part of the finan - cier’s business model); and (ii) conducting financing activities for companies within the same group. The latter exemption is, for example, commonly used for private equity funds (or underlying companies in the fund structure) to grant loans to their portfolio com - panies provided that the relevant fund has controlling influence over the portfolio company. There is also currently a legislative suggestion pending to expand this exemption to smaller ownerships, but the out - come of this is currently uncertain. It is also worth mentioning that an ongoing legislative proposal seeks to extend this exemption, although the final outcome of this also remains to be seen. Lastly, there is an exemption for reverse solicita - tion scenarios, often referred to as the “client’s first- approach exemption”, which is not expressly articu - lated in Norwegian legislation. Instead, it emerges from an interpretation of what constitutes financing activities within Norway’s jurisdiction. In essence, it allows foreign lenders to involve additional lenders in syndicated financing activities initiated by the bor - rower, their intermediaries, or under other specific conditions. 2.6 Non-Traditional Assets There are no general limitations on an AIF’s investment strategy, and the AIFM Act generally does not restrict the assets in which an AIF may invest.
However, there are certain other regulatory limitations and considerations that should be taken into account when investing in non-traditional assets. While Norwe - gian regulations generally provide flexibility in terms of investment strategies for AIFs, such assets still pose unique challenges associated with the custody of such assets. As a result, the current possibilities for direct investments in compliance with depositary requirements may be limited. Digital Assets There are currently no regulations prohibiting AIFs from investing in digital assets such as cryptocurren - cy and NFTs. However, given their volatile nature, the FSAN has previously issued cautionary statements regarding such investments, particularly with respect to price volatility and custody challenges. Internationally, investing in digital assets has become increasingly popular, and the EU therefore introduced the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which came into force in 2024. As of 1 July 2025, MiCA also applies in Norway through the new Crypto-Assets Act. European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) guidelines under MiCA have applied in Norway since 18 August 2025. This framework requires issuers and service providers to be authorised and comply with rules on capital, organisation, white papers, investor protection, and custody. Loan Portfolios and Litigation Funding Generally, Norwegian investment funds cannot origi - nate consumer credit loans or other types of loans, as further detailed in 2.5 Loan Origination . The act of financially backing lawsuits may occasion - ally be interpreted as a licensable financial activity in Norway, requiring either the requisite licences or specific exemptions. On 5 June 2023, the Norwe - gian Supreme Court provided clarity on procedural issues regarding litigation funding and opt-out class actions in the decision HR-2023-1034-A. Opt-out class actions are commonly used internationally for litigation funding. The court ruled that funders of such actions cannot derive a return on their investment through deductions from the compensation awarded to class members. This decision makes it challenging for funders to collect agreed-upon returns from the
220 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook