On August 15, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order settling proceedings against TZP Management Associates, LLC (“TZP”) for allegedly miscalculating management fee offsets between 2018 and 2023. The SEC’s action, based solely on a non-scienter claim, underscores the SEC’s ongoing focus on management fee calculation practices, despite talk of deregulation and a shift toward cases involving fraud and manipulation. Bread-and-butter issues such as fee miscalculations remain an enforcement priority.[1]

As businesses accelerate their use of automated tools to record and transcribe meetings, risks are growing. The use of these “AI tools” to transcribe meetings, such as witness interviews, expert network calls, investment committee meetings or advisory board discussions can transform ephemeral conversations into permanent records that can affect claims…

The last two decades have been marked by robust enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  In line with its “shock and awe” approach, the Trump Administration seemingly called the future enforcement of that law into question when, on February 10, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to “pause” enforcement of the FCPA and conduct a comprehensive review and update of the law’s enforcement approach. The “pause heard around the world” shocked many commentators, anti-corruption campaigners, and countries that are signatories of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (“OECD Convention”), as it raised questions about the United States’ commitment to combatting corruption going forward.

In addition to the normal operational and legal risks associated with owning and managing portfolio companies, 2025 has introduced or exacerbated a wave of geopolitical and macroeconomic risks such as inflation, tariffs, trade, depressed consumer sentiment, political risks, and credit risks. The resulting, increased risks faced by portfolio companies has caused a need for private equity sponsors to focus more closely on the insurance maintained at the portfolio company level, and not only the sponsor’s own policies. It is critical for sponsors to work closely with management of their portfolio companies, insurance brokers, and experienced coverage counsel to review and negotiate strong insurance for their portfolio companies. Savvy sponsors are able to utilize their leverage to negotiate bespoke, manuscript policy forms that can be used across their portfolio to provide consistent, strong protection for each of the sponsor’s portfolio companies.

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum outlining the Criminal Division’s enforcement priorities and policies for prosecuting corporate and white-collar crimes in the new Administration. Later that week, Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, addressed the new policies in a speech at the SIFMA Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference. Galeotti emphasized that the DOJ is “turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement,” with a renewed focus on crimes that pose the greatest risk to U.S. interests. His remarks, coupled with the recent expansion of the DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, signal a new era of accountability, transparency, and proactive compliance for portfolio companies operating in high-risk sectors.

Times of economic volatility often increase disparities between a seller’s valuation and the buyer’s valuation of the same company. Earn-out provisions are one tool frequently used to address such disparities. An earn-out provision requires the buyer to make one or more post-closing payments (the “earn-out consideration”) to the seller if the company being sold (the “earn-out entity”) meets certain milestones during a defined post-closing period (the “earn-out period,” which is usually between one to five years). These milestones may include EBITDA, gross revenue, net income, the expansion of the business into defined geographic or product areas, or other metrics.

Amid a challenging environment for exits, especially in the wake of the recent market volatility, private fund managers continue to pursue alternative strategies, such as term extensions and liquidity solutions, to ride out the liquidity downturn. While these measures are designed to protect the value of the funds’ investments and are frequently requested by limited partners, they raise potential regulatory concerns that have been the subject of SEC scrutiny in the past. As noted by a senior staff member of the Division of Examinations in March, the SEC continues to conduct exams with a focus on the bread-and-butter issues like fees, conflicts and related disclosures. Therefore, as funds approach maturity, it is worth reviewing the areas that have received the greatest regulatory attention.

Private credit has become an essential source of financing globally, with fund sponsors enjoying strong demand from borrowers, market participants, and investors.  However, as the industry’s “golden age” continues, regulatory scrutiny is growing.  Media coverage and legislative inquiries have pressured agencies — particularly the SEC — to take action.

Motivated by a rapidly evolving geopolitical climate, governments around the globe have increasingly scrutinized and intervened in transactions under foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regimes in recent years. Rising protectionism, concerns over cybersecurity threats, Covid-19 and the desire to protect critical domestic industries have driven the expansion of FDI regimes beyond purely national security or defense specific industries.

More than 100 jurisdictions now apply FDI screening in some form. The notification triggers and review processes vary significantly between these regimes, and their proliferation has significantly increased complexity for investors planning cross-border investments.