Indemnification

Subscribe to Indemnification via RSS

In its final Private Fund Adviser Rules adopted last year, the SEC dropped one of the more controversial proposed rules—the proposal to prohibit contractual exculpation or indemnification provisions that would shield or indemnify the adviser in matters involving the adviser’s negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.  On its face, this was a concession to the fund management industry. However, the Rule’s Adopting Release asserted that the SEC believed the provision was not needed because the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act already prohibited certain provisions that would be covered by the proposal. Because the SEC’s interpretation was based on current law (there is no grandfathering or “implementation date” in the future), we predict that contractual indemnification or exculpation provisions will remain firmly in the SEC’s sights for 2024. SEC exams and enforcement proceedings are likely to focus on these provisions, and they may be implicated in GP/LP disputes as well.

To understand the litigation and regulatory risks that are coming in 2024 for private capital, it is helpful to look back briefly on recent events. Arguably, the single most important event over the last 18 months was the rapid increase in interest rates by the central banks in the United States, England, and Europe. From March 2022 to August 2023, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates at the fastest clip in more than 40 years, to break inflation that had reached the highest levels since the 1970s.

Implications of SEC attempt to curb indemnification for private fund managers

The SEC spent 2022 making multiple and sweeping proposals to amend rules under the Advisers Act, many of which have the ability to significantly re-shape market standards for private funds.  Here, we focus on the SEC’s proposal to undo a common protection for private fund advisers – the ability to rely, as against the private fund or its investors, on exculpatory and indemnification provisions for a breach of fiduciary duty, willful misfeasance, recklessness, or simple negligence in providing services to the private fund.  This prohibition would relate not just to liability under the Advisers Act, but to all causes of action.

A significant ownership stake in a portfolio company has always raised the specter of claims against funds, sponsors, and sponsor-appointed board designees, if for no other reason than they are perceived by the plaintiffs’ bar to be deep pockets.  This risk has only increased in recent years, as it has…

Many portfolio companies continue to confront business disruptions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even prior to the pandemic, we were seeing an uptick in litigation claims against sponsors and funds arising out of portfolio companies. The liquidity challenges since March have increased those risks at some companies. For sponsors, many of these risks arise from director positions and conflicts of interest, whether real or alleged. Below we provide tangible ways for fund sponsors to identify risks, educate their directors, and mitigate risk.

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.

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.

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.

Top-10-2017_v2Private investment funds and advisers are likely to face new regulatory challenges and increased litigation risks in 2017, not only because of a change in the administration, but also because many advisers have not corrected and aligned past practices with current regulatory guidance.  In this post, we have highlighted ten areas that should be on the top of every private fund adviser’s list for 2017 – and how to assess and manage the associated risks.