File No. 812-15721

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(c) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED (THE “ACT”) FOR AN ORDER GRANTING EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTIONS 18(a)(2), 18(c) AND 18(i) OF THE ACT AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 17(d) OF THE ACT AND RULE 17d-1 THEREUNDER.

EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED UNDER 17 CFR 270.0-5(d).

In the Matter of:

Innovation Access Fund
SilverBay Capital Management LLC

PLEASE SEND ALL COMMUNICATIONS AND
ORDERS TO:

Jennifer Shufro
SilverBay Capital Management LLC
350 Madison Avenue, 20^th Floor
New York, NY 10017
alkeonlegal@alkeoncapital.com

George M. Silfen
Alston & Bird LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
george.silfen@alston.com

Page 1 of 16 sequentially numbered pages

As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28 , 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBITS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Investment Company Act of 1940

File No. 812-15721

EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED UNDER 17 CFR 270.0-5(d).

I.          THE PROPOSAL

Innovation Access Fund (the “Initial Fund”) is a recently organized Delaware Statutory Trust that is registered under the Act and that operates as a non-diversified, closed-end investment company. SilverBay Capital Management LLC (the “Adviser”) serves as the Initial Fund’s investment adviser.¹ The Initial Fund and the Adviser are referred to herein as the “Applicants.”

The Applicants hereby seek an order (the “Order”) from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) (i) pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from Sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act; and (ii) pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit the Initial Fund to issue multiple classes of common shares (“Shares”)² with varying sales loads and/or ongoing asset-based distribution and/or service fees with respect to certain classes.

Applicants request that the Order also apply to any other continuously offered registered closed-end management investment company that has previously been organized or that may be organized in the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser (as that term is defined in Section 2(a)(9) of the Act), or any successor in interest to any such entity,³ acts as investment adviser and which provides periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to Rule 13e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) (each, a “Future Fund,” and together with the Initial Fund, the “Funds”). Any of the Funds relying on this relief in the future will do so in compliance with the terms and conditions of this second amended and restated Application (the “Application”). Applicants represent that each entity presently intending to rely on the requested relief is listed as an Applicant.

The Initial Fund intends to make a continuous offering of its shares. The Initial Fund’s initial Registration Statement filed on Form N-2 registering the Initial Fund under the Act (“Initial Registration Statement”), refers to one initial class of Shares, “Class A Shares.” Subject to receipt of the Order, the Fund intends on offering two additional classes of Shares, “Class I Shares” and “Class W Shares,” each with its own fee and expense structure. Additional

offerings by any Fund relying on the Order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. The Initial Fund will only offer one class of shares, Class A Shares until receipt of the requested relief. Shares of the Initial Fund will be sold only to persons who are “accredited investors,” as defined in Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and “qualified clients,” as defined in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”). Any future placement agent or distributor/principal underwriter of the Funds (the “Distributor”) will be unaffiliated with the Adviser.

Shares will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium, and the Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their Shares.

It is currently contemplated that the Initial Fund’s Class A Shares will be subject to a front-end sales load and distribution and/or service fees. Class I shares are currently not expected to be subject to any front-end sales load, distribution fee or servicing fee. Class W Shares are currently not expected to be subject any front-end sales load or distribution fee, but are currently expected to be subject to a servicing fee. The Funds may in the future offer additional classes of Shares and/or another sales charge structure.

Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or distribution fees for each class of Shares of the Funds will comply with the provisions of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 2341(d) (the “FINRA Sales Charge Rule”).⁴

II.           STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Initial Fund filed a Notification of Registration Pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 on Form N-8A and an Initial Registration Statement on Form N-2 seeking to register the Initial Fund under the Act. The Initial Fund is a Delaware Statutory Trust. The Initial Fund is a non-diversified, closed-end investment company that intends to provide periodic liquidity with respect to Shares through periodic repurchase offers pursuant to Rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.

The Initial Fund’s investment objective is to generate maximum capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the Initial Fund seeks to achieve its objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in securities of private and public “Innovation Companies.” For these purposes, “Innovation Companies” include U.S. or foreign companies in technology or related sectors which the Adviser believes, at the time of investment, can innovate or grow more quickly compared to their competitors by deploying, implementing, or using technology or that are expected to be otherwise positively impacted by technological innovation. The Fund will invest in privately-offered securities through direct investments in private companies or through secondary transactions (i.e., acquisitions of interests in a private company acquired from a party other than the company itself) in such private securities. The Fund will also invest in publicly-traded equity securities of Innovation Companies or companies that have significant exposure to Innovation Companies. The Initial Fund’s address is c/o SilverBay Capital Management LLC, 350 Madison Avenue, 20^th Floor, New York, NY 10017.

The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability company and a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and serves as investment adviser to the Initial Fund pursuant to an advisory agreement (the “Investment Management Agreement”). The Investment Management Agreement is subject to approval by the Initial Fund’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons” (as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Act) of the Initial Fund and by the Initial Fund’s original sole shareholder, in the manner required by Sections 15(a) and (c) of the Act. The Applicants are not seeking any exemptions from the provisions of the Act with respect to the Investment Management Agreement. Under the terms

of the Investment Management Agreement, and subject to the authority of the Board, the Adviser is responsible for the overall management of the Initial Fund’s business affairs and selecting the Initial Fund’s investments according to the Initial Fund’s investment objectives, policies, and restrictions. The Adviser’s address is 350 Madison Avenue, 20^th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

From time to time, the Initial Fund may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ between Class A, Class I Shares, and Class W Shares pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 18f-3 under the Act.

Shares may be subject to an early repurchase fee at a rate not to exceed 2.00 percent of the shareholder’s repurchase proceeds (“Early Repurchase Fee”) if the interval between the date of purchase of the shares and the valuation date with respect to the repurchase of those shares is less than one year .⁵ Any Early Repurchase Fee imposed by a Fund will equally apply to new class Shares and to all classes of Shares of the Fund, in compliance with Section 18 of the Act and Rule 18f-3 thereunder. To the extent a Fund determines to waive, impose scheduled variations of, or eliminate any Early Repurchase Fee, it will do so in compliance with the requirements of Rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Early Repurchase Fee were a CDSL and as if the Fund were an open-end investment company and the Fund’s waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of, any such Early Repurchase Fee will apply uniformly to all shareholders of the Fund regardless of class. The Initial Fund intends to impose a 2.00 percent Early Repurchase Fee with respect to any repurchase of Shares from a shareholder at any time prior to the day immediately preceding the one-year anniversary of the shareholder’s purchase of Shares.

III.           EXEMPTION REQUESTED

Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent that a Fund’s issuance and sale of multiple classes of Shares might be deemed to result in the issuance of a class of “senior security,”⁶ within the meaning of Section 18(g) of the Act that would violate the provisions of Section 18(a)(2) of the Act, violate the equal voting provisions of Section 18(i) of the Act, and if more than one class of senior security were issued, violate Section 18(c) of the Act.

Applicants request an order pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 thereunder to the extent necessary for a Fund to pay asset-based distribution and/or service fees.

IV.           COMMISSION AUTHORITY

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act, the Commission may, by order on application, conditionally or unconditionally, exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision or provisions of the Act or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the

extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

Pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 thereunder, the Commission may issue an order permitting an affiliated person of or a principal underwriter for a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting a transaction in connection with a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit sharing plan in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under Section 17(d) and Rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.

V.           DISCUSSION

In its 1992 study entitled Protecting Investors: A Half Century of Investment Company Regulation (“Protecting Investors”), the Commission’s Division of Investment Management recognized that the Act imposes a rigid classification system that dictates many important regulatory consequences.⁷ For example, the characterization of a management company as “open-end” or “closed-end” has historically been crucial to the determination of the degree of liquidity the fund’s shareholders will have, and thus the liquidity required of the fund’s investments.

Historically, except as noted below, there has been no middle ground between the two extremes of the open-end and closed-end forms. Open-end funds have offered complete liquidity to their shareholders and thus required a high degree of liquidity of the underlying investment portfolio, while closed-end funds have been subject to requirements that in fact restrict the liquidity they are permitted to offer their investors. Under this system of regulation, neither form has provided the best vehicle for offering portfolios that have significant, but not complete, liquidity. The one exception to the liquid/illiquid dichotomy has been the so called “prime-rate funds.” These funds, first introduced in 1988, invest primarily in loans and provide shareholders liquidity through periodic tender offers (“Closed-end Tender Offer Funds”) or, more recently, periodic repurchases under Rule 23c-3.

In Protecting Investors, the staff of the Commission determined that, given the changes in the securities market since 1940 —in particular the emergence of semi-liquid investment opportunities — it was appropriate to re-examine the classification system and its regulatory requirements and that it would be appropriate to provide the opportunity for investment companies to “chart new territory” between the two extremes of the open-end and the closed-end forms, consistent with investor protection.⁸ Protecting Investors recognized that the rigidity of the Act’s classification system had become a limitation on sponsors’ ability to offer innovative products that would take advantage of the vast array of semi-liquid portfolio securities currently existing. The report also noted the pioneering efforts of the prime rate funds and the market success they had experienced.⁹ The report thus concluded that it would be appropriate to provide the opportunity for investment companies to “chart new territory” between the two extremes of the open-end and closed-end forms, consistent with the goals of investor protection.¹⁰ The Division of Investment Management thus recommended giving the industry the ability to employ new redemption and repurchasing procedures, subject to Commission rulemaking and oversight.

In accordance with this recommendation, and shortly after Protecting Investors was published, the Commission proposed for comment a new rule designed to assist the industry in this endeavor.¹¹ The Commission proposed Rule 23c-3, which began from the closed-end, illiquid perspective under Section 23(c), and provided

flexibility to increase shareholder liquidity through periodic repurchase offers under simplified procedures. Rule 23c-3 was adopted in April 1993.¹²

The prime rate funds were cited in both Protecting Investors and the Proposing Release as the prototype for the interval concept.¹³ Nonetheless, while the prime rate funds broke the path for innovation in this area, developments since the origin of these funds make further innovation appropriate. Many funds either cannot or choose not to rely on Rule 23c-3. Therefore, there exist a large number of Closed-end Tender Offer Funds, which fall between open-end and closed-end designations in regard to their operations but are not interval funds. Moreover, a number of precedents exist for the implementation of a multiple-class system and the imposition of asset-based service and/or distribution fees substantially similar to that for which Applicants seek relief.¹⁴

Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent that a Fund’s issuance and sale of multiple classes of common stock might be deemed to result in the issuance of a class of “senior security” within the meaning of Section 18(g) of the Act that would violate the provisions of Section 18(a)(2) of the Act, violate the equal voting provisions of Section 18(i) of the Act, and if more than one class of senior security were issued, violate Section 18(c) of the Act.

A registered closed-end investment company may have only one class of senior security representing indebtedness and only one class of stock that is a senior security. With respect to the class of stock that is a senior security, i.e., preferred stock, the preferred stock must have certain rights as described in Section 18(a)(2). Section 18(a)(2)(A) and (B) makes it unlawful for a registered closed-end investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless (a) immediately after such issuance it will have an asset coverage of at least 200% and (b) provision is made to prohibit the declaration of any distribution, upon its common stock, or the purchase of any such common stock, unless in every such case such senior security has at the time of the declaration of any such distribution, or at the time of any such purchase, an asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the amount of such distribution or purchase price, as the case may be. Section 18(a)(2)(C) and (D) makes it unlawful for a registered closed-end

investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless, stockholders have the right, voting separately as a class, to: (i) elect at least two directors at all times; (ii) elect a majority of the directors if at any time dividends on such class of securities have been unpaid in an amount equal to two full years’ dividends on such securities; and (iii) approve any plan of reorganization adversely affecting their securities or any action requiring a vote of security holders as set forth in section 13(a).¹⁵ Section 18(a)(2)(E) requires that such class of stock will have “complete priority over any other class as to distribution of assets and payment of dividends, which dividends shall be cumulative.”

Section 18(i) provides:

Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, or as otherwise required by law, every share of stock hereafter issued by a registered management company . . . shall be voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock: Provided, That this subsection shall not apply . . . to shares issued in accordance with any rules, regulations, or orders which the Commission may make permitting such issue.

Finally, Section 18(c) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any registered closed-end investment company. . . to issue or sell any senior security which is a stock if immediately thereafter such company will have outstanding more than one class of senior security which is a stock,” except that “any such class of . . . stock may be issued in one or more series: provided, that no such series shall have a preference or priority over any other series upon the distribution of the assets of such registered closed-end company or in respect of the payment of interest or dividends...”

The multi-class system proposed herein (the “Multi-Class System”) may result in Shares of a class having priority over another class as to payment of dividends and having unequal voting rights, because under the proposed Multi-Class System (i) shareholders of different classes may pay different distribution and/or service fees (and related costs as described above), different administrative fees and any other incremental expenses that should be properly allocated to a particular class, and (ii) each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.

Applicants believe that the implementation of the Multi-Class System will enhance shareholder options. Under a multi-class system, an investor can choose the method of purchasing shares that is most beneficial given the amount of his or her purchase, the length of time the investor expects to hold his or her Shares, the use of a financial intermediary through which the Shares will be purchased and other relevant circumstances. The proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate both the distribution of its securities and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services.

By contrast, if a Fund were required to organize new, separate investment portfolios for each class of Shares, the success of the new portfolios might be limited. Unless each new portfolio grew at a sufficient rate and to a sufficient size, it could be faced with liquidity and diversification problems that would prevent the portfolio from producing a favorable return.

Under the proposed Multi-Class System, owners of each class of Shares may be relieved of a portion of the fixed costs normally associated with investing in investment companies because these costs potentially would be spread over a greater number of Shares than they would be if the classes were separate funds or portfolios. As a Fund grows in volume of assets, it is expected that the investors will derive benefits from economies of scale that would not be available at smaller volumes.

The Commission has long recognized that multiple class arrangements can be structured so that the concerns underlying the Act’s “senior security” provisions are satisfied. After having granted numerous exemptive orders (“multiple class exemptive orders”) to open-end investment companies permitting those funds to issue two or more classes of shares representing interests in the same portfolio,¹⁶ the Commission adopted Rule 18f-3 under the Act in

1995, which now permits open-end funds to maintain or create multiple classes without seeking individual exemptive orders, as long as certain conditions are met.¹⁷

Applicants believe that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise concerns underlying Section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies’ multiple class structures. The proposed multiple class structure does not relate to borrowings and will not adversely affect a Fund’s assets. In addition, the proposed structure will not increase the speculative character of each Fund’s shares. Applicants also believe that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders.

Applicants believe that the rationale for, and conditions contained in, Rule 18f-3 are as applicable to a closed-end investment company seeking to offer multiple classes of common shares with varying distribution and/or service arrangements in a single portfolio as they are to open-end funds. Each Fund will comply with the provisions of Rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company, including, among others, its provisions relating to differences in expenses, special allocations of other expenses, voting rights, conversions and exchanges and disclosures. In fact, each Fund is expected in many ways to resemble an open-end fund in its manner of operation and in the distribution of its common shares.

In particular, the Funds will offer their shares continuously at a price based on net asset value, plus any applicable front-end sales charge. Differences among classes will, as detailed above, relate largely to differences in distribution and/or service arrangements. Applicants note that open-end and closed-end funds are subject to different technical provisions governing the issuance of senior securities. However, those technical differences do not appear relevant here. Although closed-end funds may not issue multiple classes of common shares without exemptive relief, the Commission has granted specific exemptive relief to similarly situated closed-end funds.¹⁸ Provisions regulating the issuance by closed-end funds of debt or preferred stock should have no bearing on an application by a closed-end fund for an exemptive order permitting the issuance of multiple classes of common stock. Therefore, Applicants propose to base the conditions under which the Funds would issue multiple classes of common stock on those contained in Rule 18f-3.

Applicants believe that the proposed allocation of expenses and voting rights relating to the asset-based distribution and/or service fees applicable to the different classes of shares of each Fund in the manner described above is equitable and would not discriminate against any group of shareholders. Each Applicant is aware of the need for full disclosure of the proposed multi-class system in each Fund’s prospectus and of the differences among the various classes and the different expenses of each class of shares offered. Each Fund will include in its prospectus disclosure of the fees, expenses and other characteristics of each class of shares offered for sale by the prospectus, as is required

for open-end multi-class funds under Form N-1A.¹⁹ Applicants also note that the Commission has adopted rule and form amendments to require registered open-end management investment companies to disclose fund expenses borne by shareholders during the reporting period in shareholder reports,²⁰ and to describe in their prospectuses any arrangements that result in breakpoints in, or elimination of, sales loads.²¹ Each Fund will include these disclosures in its shareholder reports and prospectus.

Each Fund will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to each Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund’s shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund’s shares.

In June 2006, the Commission adopted enhanced fee disclosure requirements for fund of funds including registered funds of hedge funds.²² Applicants will comply with all such applicable disclosure requirements.

The requested relief is similar to the exemptions discussed above granted by the Commission to Felicitas Private Markets Fund and Skypoint Capital Advisors, LLC, Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser (Canada) L.P. and Brookfield Infrastructure Income Fund, Inc., Alti Private Equity Access and Commitments Fund and ALTI, LLC, MBC Total Private Markets Access Fund and Seneca Management, LLC, Carlyle Alpinvest Private Markets Fund and Alpinvest Private Equity Investment Management, LLC, Constitution Capital Private Markets Fund, LLC and Constitution Capital PM, LP, Fairway Private Equity & Venture Capital Opportunities Fund and Fairway Capital Management, LLC, The Optima Dynamic Alternatives Fund, MVP Private Markets Fund and Portfolio Advisors, LLC, Hamilton Lane Private Assets Fund, Cresset Private Markets Opportunity Fund, Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund, NorthStar/Townsend Institutional Real Estate Fund, Inc., and FS Global Credit Opportunities Fund.²³ Accordingly, Applicants believe there is ample precedent for the implementation of a multi-class system.

Applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit the Funds to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees (in a manner analogous to Rule 12b-1 fees for an open-end investment company). Section 12(b) of the Act and Rule 12b-1 thereunder do not

apply to closed-end investment companies. Accordingly, no provisions of the Act or the rules thereunder explicitly limits the ability of a closed-end fund to impose a distribution and/or service fee.²⁴

Section 17(d) of the Act prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from effecting any transaction in which such registered company is a joint, or a joint and several, participant, in contravention of Commission regulations. Rule 17d-1 provides that no joint transaction covered by the rule may be consummated unless the Commission issues an order upon application.

In reviewing applications pursuant to Section 17(d) and Rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether an investment company’s participation in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants. Section 17(d) of the Act is intended to prevent or limit abuses arising from conflicts of interest; however, Section 17(d) itself does not prohibit any specific activities, but instead, authorizes the Commission to approve rules to limit or prevent an investment company from being a joint participant on a different or less advantageous basis than other participants. Under Rule 17d-1, it is unlawful for an affiliated person, acting as principal, to participate in or effect any transaction in connection with a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement in which the investment company is a participant, without prior Commission approval. The protections provided for in Section 17(d) essentially allow the Commission to set standards for all transactions concerning an investment company and an affiliate which could be construed as self-dealing or involve overreaching by the affiliate to the detriment of the investment company.

Each Fund will comply with the protections for open-end investment companies developed and approved by the Commission in Rule 12b-1 in connection with its Distribution and Service Plan(s), if any, with respect to each class of Shares as if the Fund were an open-end management investment company.

Therefore, the Funds will participate in substantially the same way and under substantially the same conditions as would be the case with an open-end investment company imposing distribution and/or service fees under Rule 12b-1. Applicants note that, at the same time the Commission adopted Rule 12b-1,²⁵ it also adopted Rule 17d-3 to provide an exemption from Section 17(d) and Rule 17d-1 to the extent necessary for arrangements between open-end funds and their affiliated persons or principal underwriters (or affiliated persons of such persons or principal underwriters) whereby payments are made by the open-end fund with respect to distribution, if such agreements are entered into in compliance with Rule 12b-1. In its adopting release, the Commission stated as follows:

The Commission wishes to emphasize that it has no intention of categorizing certain transactions as raising the applicability of Section 17(d) and Rule 17d-3 of the Act. The Commission’s only comment is that to the extent that arrangements in which a fund pays for its distribution costs could involve the fund in a `joint enterprise’ with an affiliated person, and if such arrangements were entered into in compliance with Rule 12b-1, the Commission sees no need for prior Commission review and approval of the arrangements.²⁶

As closed-end management investment companies, the Funds may not rely on Rule 17d-3. However, in light of the foregoing, Applicants believe any Section 17(d) concerns the Commission might have in connection with a Fund’s financing the distribution of its shares should be resolved by the Fund’s undertaking to comply with the provisions of Rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies. Accordingly, the Funds will comply with Rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies. The Funds represent that the Funds’ imposition of asset-based distribution and/or service fees is consistent with factors considered by the Commission in reviewing applications for relief from Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 thereunder (i.e., that the imposition of such fees as described is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants).

VI.           APPLICANTS’ CONDITION

Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:

Each Fund relying on the Order will comply with the provisions of Rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, lla-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the FINRA Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.

VII.           CORPORATE ACTION

Each Fund’s organizational documents will empower the Board to establish different classes of Shares and to take any other action necessary to accomplish the establishment and creation of such classes of Shares. The Initial Trustee of the Fund has adopted resolutions, attached as Exhibit A, authorizing the Fund’s officers to file the Application with the Commission.

VIII.           CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Applicants submit that the exemptions requested are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants desire that the Commission issue the requested Order pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act without conducting a hearing.

Applicants submit that the exemptions requested conform substantially to the precedent cited herein.²⁷

As required by Rule 0-2(c)(1) under the Act, each Applicant hereby states that all of the requirements for execution and filing of this Application on behalf of the Applicants have been complied with in accordance with the organizational documents of the Applicants, as applicable, and the undersigned officers of the Applicants are fully authorized to execute this Application. The resolutions of the Initial Trustee of the Initial Fund are attached as Exhibit A to this Application in accordance with the requirements of Rule 0-2(c) (1) under the Act and the verifications required by Rule 0-2(d) under the Act are attached as Exhibit B to this Application.

Pursuant to Rule 0-2(f) under the Act, the Applicants state that their address is c/o SilverBay Capital Management LLC, 350 Madison Avenue, 20^th Floor, New York, NY 10017 (Initial Fund) and SilverBay Capital Management LLC, 350 Madison Avenue, 20^th Floor, New York, NY 10017 (Adviser) and that all written communications regarding this Application should be directed to the individuals and addresses indicated on the first page of this Application.

* * * * *

Signature Page Follows

EXHIBIT A

Resolutions of the Initial Trustee of the Initial Fund

EXHIBIT B

Verifications of the Initial Fund and the Adviser

The undersigned states that he has duly executed the attached application dated April 28 , 2025 for and on behalf of Innovation Access Fund in his capacity as Initial Trustee of such entity and that all actions by the holders and other bodies necessary to authorize the undersigned to execute and file such instrument have been taken. The undersigned further states that he is familiar with such instrument, and the contents thereof, and that the facts therein set forth are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

The undersigned states that he has duly executed the attached application dated April 28 , 2025 for and on behalf of SilverBay Capital Management LLC in his capacity as an Authorized Person of such entity and that all actions by the holders and other bodies necessary to authorize the undersigned to execute and file such instrument have been taken. The undersigned further states that he is familiar with such instrument, and the contents thereof, and that the facts therein set forth are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

EXHIBIT C

Marked copies of the Application showing changes from the final versions of the two applications identified
as substantially identical under Rule 0-5(e)(3).