Directors and Officers

Subscribe to Directors and Officers via RSS

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.

“A Fund Managers’ Guide to Maximizing D&O and E&O Insurance Coverage” examines best practices for fund managers—particularly in the current economic climate—for negotiating and obtaining strong insurance protection and maximizing recovery when claims arise. As the economic impact of COVID-19 continues to reverberate across all global industries, there is an…

Proskauer’s Private Investment Funds Group recently released its 2019 Annual Review and Outlook for Hedge Funds, Private Equity Funds and Other Private Funds. This yearly publication provides a summary of some of the significant changes and developments that occurred in the past year in the private equity and hedge funds space, as well as certain recommended practices that advisers should consider when preparing for 2020.

A recent case in a North Dakota district court is a reminder to private equity funds and managers that, under certain conditions, they may be held responsible for actions of a fund’s portfolio companies.  Courts allow plaintiffs to pierce the corporate veil as a check against improper abuse of the corporate form.  When one corporate entity is under such extensive control by another that the first is merely an alter ego of the second, a court may permit a plaintiff to reach through the corporate structure to gain recovery.  This is particularly true if the first entity is undercapitalized.  Through this mechanism, limited liability does not mean immunity from liability, and under certain circumstances a plaintiff can hold the ultimate shareholders or owners liable for company obligations.

Recently, a group of Congress members introduced into Congress Senate Bill 2155 named the Stop Wall Street Looting Act of 2019. Although unlikely to be enacted into law as drafted, this proposed legislation would directly and substantially affect a number of fundamental operational aspects of private equity funds and their affiliates.

The Third Circuit recently issued an important decision for private fund advisors who serve on corporate boards.  In a precedential decision on a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit distinguished the role of nonvoting board observers from the function of formal corporate directors.  And while the decision was issued in the context of liability for alleged violations of the securities laws, the Third Circuit suggested the analysis may apply more broadly to other situations involving board observers.

The case, Obasi Investment Ltd. v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, began in New Jersey federal court as a class action lawsuit alleging Tibet Pharmaceuticals failed to disclose certain information about its financial health prior to its IPO.  Two of the defendants, Downs and Zou, claimed they were merely observers to Tibet’s board and therefore should not be found liable for any misconduct of the company board.  The trial court judge granted summary judgment in the duo’s favor on all counts except a violation of Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act, stating that the question presented a novel issue ripe for an appellate court.

On appeal, the Third Circuit threw out the last remaining Section 11 claim against the two defendants stating that board observers are not the same as directors.  A claim under Section 11 can be brought against any person “named in the registration statement as being or about to become a director, person performing similar functions, or partner.”  The issue before the Third Circuit was whether the board observers were “person[s] performing similar functions” to directors.

An increasingly sophisticated and active OCIE division, innovative market disruptors, a maturing credit cycle, and a philosophical change in how the private fund industry views and utilizes litigation are likely to lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk for advisers (and their funds) in 2019.  With that backdrop, we are pleased to present our Top Ten Regulatory and Litigation Risks for Private Funds in 2019.

Proskauer’s Private Investment Funds Group today released its 2018 Annual Review and Outlook for Hedge Funds, Private Equity Funds and Other Private Funds.  This yearly publication provides a summary of some of the significant changes and developments that occurred in the past year in the private equity and hedge…

We recently posted about the risks associated with veil-piercing claims and the ways in which fund managers can protect themselves from exposure to these claims. Our first post on veil-piercing focused on Delaware standards, while this post discusses California law.

California law differs in several important respects from Delaware law on this topic. If a company is subject to suit in California, there are increased risks even if the company is incorporated elsewhere.  Courts may assert that California law should apply when the plaintiff is a California resident or when the company operates in California.

And where California law applies, courts may aggressively set aside corporate distinctions, leading to unanticipated results.