Welcome to the Fall 2018 edition of the Duff & Phelps
Secondary Market Advisory (SMA) newsletter. Enclosed you will find
the names of private equity and hedge fund managers for whose funds
Duff & Phelps holds current secondary market pricing
indications. You will also find a Q&A with Ken C. Joseph, Esq.
who shares his thoughts regarding the current regulatory
environment as it pertains to GP-led secondary transactions.
Highlighted Content Includes:
- Private equity and hedge fund manager pricing list
- Recent Duff & Phelps advisory experience
- Navigating GP-led secondaries - Q&A with Ken C. Joseph, Esq.
Private Equity Manager Prices |
|
|
|
Hedge Fund Manager Prices |
|
|
|
Interview with Ken C. Joseph, Esq, Managing Director, Disputes and Investigations
Q: Recently, Europe has been one of the most active
regions for GP-led secondary transactions. Are there any
significant regulatory differences between Europe and the U.S. that
may be holding back GP-led activity in the U.S.?
A: It is true that the secondaries market in
general has experienced rapid growth over the last decade and that
European GP-led deals have outpaced U.S. deals. I expect that the
U.S. GPs will increase activity in the near term, probably driven
by pressure from LPs as well as GPs' desire to provide
liquidity for investors in funds that were formed in the wake of
the financial crisis and which are approaching "zombie"
status.
That said, there is no question that in recent years the U.S.
securities law enforcement and examination environment has had an
impact on the considerations that prudent GPs must factor into the
equation when deciding whether to do secondaries, and when
determining what form those liquidity events should take. In
addition, spurred by heightened regulatory scrutiny and the lessons
learned from some well-publicized enforcement actions, LPs are
demanding more disclosures from GPs and are performing their own
due diligence on the material terms of proposed deals. LPs are also
not shy about contacting regulators when secondaries terms are
perceived to be unfair, or when their own due diligence uncovers
potential inconsistencies.
Q: Before launching an offering, what are some things GPs
and advisors should keep in mind to help avoid post-transaction
regulatory hurdles?
A: Because the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) does not pre-review or approve the terms of these
private securities transactions, GPs and their advisoers should
adopt a 'regulator's eye' and view the terms offered
through the lens of an aggrieved LP. In assessing the risks of
regulatory scrutiny, GPs should recognize that GP-led secondaries
are inherently conflicted transactions, and they should ask
themselves:
- What could be perceived as unfair to the client fund, or to the fund's LPs?
- Has the GP disclosed accurately and completely all material information so that LPs can make an informed decision?
- Has the GP identified all material conflicts—including financial incentives—and disclosed those conflicts to the client and to LPs?
- Has the GP disclosed all material interests that the GP has in the outcome?
- Has the GP favored any party to the transaction, and has the process been made transparent and legally compliant?
- Have material terms, such as valuations, been determined after proper due diligence and with input from independent experts?
At every level of inquiry, GPs/advisors should always remember
that they are fiduciaries and are subject to the anti-fraud and
other applicable provisions of securities laws.
Q: In a potential review of a GP-led transaction, are there
any primary areas of focus for the U.S. SEC? If so, what are
they?
A: Beginning in 2014, there has been an uptick in
U.S. regulatory scrutiny on private equity funds, particularly on
those engaged in transactions where there may be inherent
conflicts, potential lack of parity of access to material
information, and where there were concerns over adherence to
fiduciary duty obligations to put the interest of the client fund
and by extension investors in the fund above all else.
Specifically, U.S. regulators have examined and investigated
concerns that GPs may have:
- Operated funds beyond the expected end-of-life, without complying with notice and investor consent obligations reflected in fund documents
- Continued to collect management fees on "zombie fund" investments, with little incentive to wind-down those investments for the benefit of fund LPs
- Continued to collect monitoring and board fees, without determining whether winding-down those investments would better serve the interests of the fund and its investors
- Sought to improperly extend the life of funds, or alter management fee and carried interest hurdles
- Made incomplete or inaccurate representations in solicitation documents
- Withheld or used material non-public information in a manner that harmed client funds or LPs
- Failed to comply with U.S. securities tender offer rules (for deals involving tender offers)
- Improperly valued assets in secondaries
- Improperly collected fees from, or inappropriately shifted expenses to advised funds
- Failed to offset certain compensation obtained as a result of the transactions
- Improperly obtained transaction-based compensation, without complying with the broker-dealer registration requirements
- Made full and fair disclosures to client funds, or to investors in those funds; and
- Otherwise breached obligations to non-selling LPs who remain invested in the fund
Q: To investors in private assets, the U.S. SEC's
priorities can sometimes seem a bit inscrutable. How can investors
in private assets best stay informed regarding relevant U.S. SEC
actions and news?
A: Obviously getting advice and counsel from
informed consultants and legal advisors is one way investors can
stay current on the industry-specific risks and priorities of the
U.S. SEC. In addition, the U.S. SEC has increasingly used a range
of public platforms as part of its strategy to deter misconduct and
encourage compliance with its rules and regulations. For example,
investors should consider subscribing to:
- News announcements from the U.S. SEC (available here);
- Priorities and risk alerts (available here);
- Enforcement actions (available here);
- Periodic guidance (available here) and commission speeches (available here).
LPs employing this do-it-yourself approach may still need objective and informed guidance to put the U.S. SEC-provided information into context, to interpret the nuances and to assess how their particular set of facts and circumstances may be impacted by the Commission's pronouncements.
Q: Are there any resources available to LPs to help them
evaluate, from a regulatory perspective, GP-led transactions
involving funds in which they are invested?
A: The U.S. SEC does not opine prospectively on
the merits of GP-led secondaries. LPs therefore must either rely on
GPs to act in the LPs' interest, or diligence the proposed deal
themselves. While LPs may be eager to get liquidity for a variety
of reasons, many may not have sufficient expertise onboard to
properly diligence and evaluate the GP-led deals and may not even
be familiar with the process sufficient to determine where
interests may not be aligned. Under these circumstances, there
is really no substitute for competent and informed legal and
consulting advice from knowledgeable persons. Expertise in
assessing the risks, costs, benefits, valuation, pricing and
overall fairness of the proposed transaction is crucial.
Q: From a regulatory perspective, in what areas can an
advisor add the most value in a GP-led secondary
transaction?
A: As much as trusted, independent and
knowledgeable advisors can assist LPs to diligence the proposed
transactions, such advisors can add value and reduce the risks to
GPs as well. GPs who want to get it right and minimize the risk of
regulatory scrutiny or LP lawsuits can find value in employing
independent, knowledgeable and conflict-free third-party advisors
to help them navigate the complex world of secondaries. Regulators
tend to get involved when things go wrong and to review actual or
potential misconduct with a retrospective lens. If a GP finds
itself in the regulatory crosshairs, the GP can bolster its defense
by demonstrating that it took reasonable steps and followed proper
procedures to diligence transactions, to value assets, to disclose
material information and conflicts, and documented its adherence to
the fiduciary and compliance rules. Doing so will generally help to
demonstrate the GP's lack of malintent to breach its fiduciary
obligations, assuming such failings even occurred.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.