Private Equity Law Review : New York Private Equity Lawyer & Attorney : Geoffrey Parnass : Corporate & Business Law

As we previously noted, the ILPA (International Limited Partners Association) recently published a wide-ranging set of “best practices” that it hopes will shape the practices of the private equity sponsor community. In this piece, we’d like to focus on ILPA’s recommended changes to the fiduciary duty provisions of investment partnership agreements. First, we’ll summarize ILPA’s wish list in the area of fiduciary duties. Then, we’ll examine the investor documents of a well-known sponsor (KKR) to see how far apart current practice is from ILPA's wish list.

First, a little background. A fiduciary duty is a relationship of confidence or trust between two parties. A fiduciary must be loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty. He must not put his personal interests before that duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. Under common law rules, the general partner of an investment partnership owes a fiduciary duty to the limited partners. 

In Delaware, where most investment partnerships are formed, the fiduciary duty include an obligation to act in good faith and with due care and loyalty. The duty of care requires a general partner to act for the partnership in the same manner as a prudent person would act on his own behalf.  The duty of loyalty prohibits a general partner from taking any action or engaging in any transaction that is not in the best interests of the partnership where a conflict of interest is present. However, Delaware law also says say that these duties can be “restricted or eliminated” in the partnership agreement. Most sponsors take advantage of the opportunity to both restrict and eliminate fiduciary duties.

ILPA hopes to push back against the erosion of fiduciary duties and “reinforce” the fiduciary duties of the sponsor community. Specifically, it wants to delete:

• Provisions that reduce fiduciary duties “to the fullest extent allowed by law”.
• Provisions that allow general partner to use its sole discretion and weigh its own self-interest against the interest of the fund.
• Provisions where limited partners waive broad categories of conflicts or affiliated transactions.
• Provisions that allow general partner and its affiliates to be exculpated or indemnified for conduct constituting a material breach of the partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duties, or other “for cause” events.

So, how far back do LPs have to push on fiduciary duties? To answer that, we looked at the prospectus filed by KKR & Co. LP last year when it tried to go public. The prospectus summarizes the lengths to which KKR has gone to restrict or eliminate any fiduciary duty to investors. In short, KKR has fully eliminated the core fiduciary obligation to put the interests of investors ahead of its own interests, and to act solely in the best interests of investors where a conflict is present. In making any discretionary decision, the KKR general partner is allowed to take into account whatever factors it wishes, including its own interests, and does not have any duty or obligation to consider any factors affecting investors.

Moreover, the KKR general partner cannot be liable to investors for any act unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment by a court determining that it has acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct. That's a pretty high hurdle.

As the prospectus itself informs us, in language only a lawyer could love: “These modifications are detrimental to our unitholders because they restrict the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that without those limitations might constitute breaches of duty, including a fiduciary duty, and they permit our Managing Partner to take into account the interests of third parties in addition to our interests when resolving conflicts of interest.”

It looks like ILPA and its members have a ways to go.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A July ruling by the Court of Chancery holds important lessons for how Delaware courts interpret advancement and indemnification provisions in limited partnership agreements. In J. Michael Stepp v. Heartland Industrial Partners, L.P., two former officers and directors of the defunct Collins & Aikman Corporation sought advancement of legal fees and indemnification from the company’s majority investor, Heartland Industrial Partners, L.P. After C&A disclosed historical accounting irregularities, J. Michael Stepp and David A. Stockman incurred hefty expenses resulting from civil and criminal proceedings brought against them in connection with their roles at the portfolio company. Heartland rebuffed the directors’ request, insisting that (i) the general partner of the private equity fund had the discretion to refuse their advancement application and (ii) the directors failed to satisfy the requirements of the partnership agreement’s indemnification clause. The Court of Chancery disagreed and chastised Heartland for relying on ambiguous contractual language to shirk its obligations.   

Contractual Ambiguity Resolved Against General Partner

In his opinion, Vice Chancellor Strine drew on general principles of Delaware contract law. Confronted with a partnership agreement marred by slipshod drafting, Strine emphasized the public policy considerations behind Delaware courts’ approach to interpreting the foundational documents of business entities. 

Delaware courts resolve ambiguities in governing instruments in order to provide uniform, predictable interpretations of the documents that officers, investors, and other constituencies who provide benefits to the entity rely on in making their decisions about whether to participate in the entity’s activities. This principle of interpretation protects the participants’ reasonable expectations, which in turn benefits the entity by encouraging participants to provide their capital, be it human or financial, at a lower cost than they would if they faced greater uncertainty.

Directors, officers, and employees of limited partnerships, Strine observed, generally do not take part in the negotiation of the partnership’s organizational documents. Consequently, when deciding whether to work for a limited partnership, they must rely on the plain meaning of the terms of the partnership agreement in order to understand their rights and obligations. To protect the reasonable expectations of people who join a partnership after its formation, Strine reasoned, Delaware courts construe ambiguous terms against the drafter of the governing instrument.     

Advancement of Legal Fees & Expenses

The court granted the directors’ motion for summary judgment that they had a mandatory right to the advancement of legal fees and expenses under the limited partnership agreement.   After finding themselves defendants in half a dozen civil actions, Stepp and Stockman first applied for advancement of legal fees and expenses to C&A’s and Heartland’s insurance carriers. Once they exhausted the insurance policies, the directors turned to Heartland itself. Heartland’s general partner refused to authorize their petition.  

The relevant section of the partnership agreement read: “[e]xpenses reasonably incurred by an Indemnitee shall be advanced by the Partnership,” but “[n]o advances shall be made by the Partnership. . . without the prior written approval of the General Partner.” Heartland claimed that the prior written approval requirement granted the general partner sole discretion to decide whether to accept or deny an application for advancement. The court rebuked Heartland for its strained interpretation of the written approval requirement because it eviscerated the mandatory advancement language. Strine instead construed the requirement as performing the ministerial function of ensuring the directors’ request for an advancement of expenses was reasonable. According to the court, the general partner did not have the power to withhold its written approval merely to block the directors’ contractual rights to mandatory advancement.

Indemnification of Legal Fees & Expenses

Stepp and Stockman sought indemnification for expenses related to their defense against criminal charges, all of which were dismissed without prejudice by a federal court. The partnership agreement contained expansive indemnification rights by promising the directors restitution for “any and all claims. . .of any nature whatsoever.” But the partnership agreement subjected this broad indemnity to certain qualifications. In its motion to dismiss, Heartland maintained that the partnership agreement required the directors to demonstrate good faith, lawfulness, and the absence of any willful or knowing misconduct. 

The partnership agreement was silent with respect to the rights of indemnitees who were successful in proceedings brought against them. As a result, the court held that the terms of the agreement did not clearly require an indemnitee to prove good faith, lawfulness, or lack of willful misconduct where, as occurred in the case of Stepp and Stockman, the indemnitee emerged victorious in the underlying proceeding. In support of its construction, the court cited recent Delaware case law mandating an award of indemnification after the dismissal of a case without prejudice. 

Indemnification decisions, the court explained, should be made on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, directors who are defendants in lawsuits would have to wait until all proceedings against them have been dropped or resolved. To apply Heartland’s interpretation of the agreement would contravene Delaware’s “strong public policy interest in promoting indemnification. . . to encourage capable people to serve as directors.” Given the agreement’s mandatory indemnification provision and the directors’ successful defense against the criminal charges brought against them, the court observed that Heartland bore the burden of proof that Stepp and Stockman did not satisfy the indemnification requirements. The court accordingly rejected Heartland’s motion to dismiss the directors’ claims for reimbursement.

Freedom of Contract & Delaware’s Limited Partnership Act

Vice Chancellor Strine noted that Section 17-108 of Delaware’s Limited Partnership Act affords limited partnerships greater freedom to draft their own indemnification plans than is available to corporations under Section 145 of Delaware’s General Corporation Law. In the case of Heartland, the court remarked that “drafters of the Partnership Agreement used their contractual freedom to craft an approach to indemnification that employs language drawn from § 145, but in a selective way that creates some room for confusion.” 

When drafting indemnification provisions in limited partnership agreements, general partners should focus on clarity and not rely on boilerplate or statutory language adapted from other sources of law. Freedom of contract does not come without substantial responsibilities. Bespoke partnership agreements need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the contracting parties and any potential third-party beneficiaries. Populating a limited partnership agreement with a farrago of provisos and exceptions does not give a general partner the right to break its explicit contractual promises.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Waterfall Structure

• The LP’s capital contribution plus preferred return should be paid first, before any distributions are made to the GP’s carried interest
• Establish GP carry escrow accounts with reserves of 30% or more to cover potential claw back liabilities
• Carry on recapitalizations should be paid only when the full amount of LP capital is returned on the recapitalized investment

Calculation of Carried Interest

• Carried interest should be calculated on net profits, not gross profits
• Carry should not be paid on current income
• Carried interest should be calculated only on an after-tax basis

Claw back

•  Claw back liabilities should be determined and reported periodically
•  Claw back liabilities should be paid within 2 years and should be gross of taxes paid
•  Effective joint and several claw backs should be implemented to make sure that full claw back liabilities are met

Management Fee Structure

• Management fees should be based on reasonable operating expenses and reasonable salaries, so that fees are not excessive.
• Management fees should reduce upon formation of follow-on fund and at the end of the investment period
• The management fee should be used to pay all normal operating costs of the GP, including interactions with the LPs. The LPs should have the power to review the partnership expenses annually
• Placement agent fees should be paid by the GP
• All transaction, monitoring, directory, advisory and exit fees should accrue 100% to the benefit of the fund.     

The Principles also include detailed suggested changes to the fiduciary duty requirements of the GP. For example, provisions of fund documents that disclaim or reduce fiduciary duties should be eliminated.  We will discuss these recommendations in more detail in a later post.

The Association is currently gathering formal endorsement of the Principles from its members and promises to publish a list of the endorsing institutions on its website.

How will the Principles be received by the sponsor community? That awaits to be seen. Institutional investors would love to establish a set of best practices across the sponsor community in order to make their investments in the asset class more uniform, and more favorable. They would like to reign in the variations in how sponsors define and enforce rules governing distributions, claw backs, and fees.  The sponsors will certainly resist any uniform treatment, and look for advantages at the margins, whether in the area of distributions or discretion in the application of fees.  Assuming a large number of institutional investors formally endorse the Principles, it may become difficult, if not impossible, for the GP community to ignore the recommendations.  The LP community has taken to heart the motto: United We Stand, Divided We Fall.         

Related Post:  Increased Capital Calls and Diminished Distributions for Private Equity LPs

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Returns for private equity investors suffered their worst decline on record in 2008, according to a study issued by London-based research firm Preqin. Limited partners ended up paying more money into buyout funds than they took out. The Financial Times reported that general partners made $148 billion in capital calls from limited partners, but only distributed $63 billion in returns. Concerned about their ability to meet future capital calls in the face of diminished expectations for distributions, institutional investors appear wary of increasing their exposure to private equity.  

Hampered by the decline in markets, private equity general partners continue to scramble to find profitable exits. A recent Dealogic analysis reviewed by The New York Times reveals that exits from portfolio company investments by private equity funds generated only $20.8 billion in the first half of 2009, down from $115 billion in the first half of 2008. General partners have also achieved little success in finding attractive acquisition targets. Even when private equity firms have identified valuable buyout opportunities, tight credit markets have hindered them from financing the deals.   CNNMoney.com writes that only three loans were given to leveraged buyout funds in the first half of 2009. Lenders’ reluctance to finance leveraged buyouts have forced private equity GPs to adjust their deal structures, relying more heavily on equity investments (and corresponding capital calls from their LPs). Apax Partners LLP, for example, recently bought the personal financial information provider Bankrate, Inc. for around $571 million in cash.    

An increase in capital calls, decrease in distributions, and the scarcity of debt financing for deals have made it difficult for firms to raise financing for new funds. The Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst found that during the first half of 2009 general partners only raised 50% of the capital that they raised during the first half of last year. For those investors that have decided to commit to new funds, however, at least one study suggests that limited partners increasingly have been able to negotiate more investor-friendly terms in the funds’ limited partnership agreements. Last year’s large discrepancy between the amount of capital calls and distributions seems to have emboldened institutional investors to seek greater contractual rights and better financial terms from general partners. 

Evidence from a research report issued by Preqin in July suggests that limited partners have successfully negotiated more favorable terms in fund partnership documents in at least some cases. Preqin discovered that there has been a reduction in the average management fee demanded by general partners to 1.8% (compared to an average of 2% which had held steady for the past several years). Limited partners have also been able to win some concessions on restrictive covenants. Preqin indicates that there has been an increased prevalence of both “key-man” and “no-fault divorce” clauses in limited partnership agreements. 

A key-many provision allows limited partners to suspend their obligations to make further capital contributions for new investments if certain key personnel at the general partner leave the fund or otherwise neglect to spend sufficient time and effort managing the fund’s investments. (When Steven Rattner left the Quadrangle Group in February to head Obama’s auto industry task force, his departure triggered a key-man clause in a fund’s limited partnership agreement.) No-fault divorce clauses permit a specified majority (often 75%) of a fund’s limited partners to vote to suspend their obligations to make capital calls, remove the general partner, or even terminate the partnership, if they determine that the general partner is no longer acting in the interests of the fund.  

Although there is a growing secondary market for private equity fund interests, private equity as an asset class remains more or less illiquid. Limited partnership agreements typically bind investors to a 10-year commitment, often with an option to extend their commitment for up to 3 years until all portfolio investments have been exited. Moreover, investments in private equity funds take between two to seven years to generate returns for their limited partners.  While it’s likely that institutional investors are leveraging what they see as an increase in negotiating power to extract concessions from general partners, it’s also possible that investors are reassessing the risks that buyout funds pose for them as an asset class. After a year of continual capital calls from general partners, institutional investors may have a renewed appreciation for contractual mechanisms that permit them to halt capital calls – and thus stanch the bleeding – during tough economic times.

Related Post:  Private Equity LPs Seek to Impose "Best Practices" on Sponsor Community

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In our previous post, we discussed some of the customary agreements and covenants in interim investor agreements for private equity consortia. Today, we’ll describe the types of pre-closing equity syndication procedures commonly found in interim investor agreements. For large buyouts requiring significant capital investment, the initial members of a private equity consortium may want to be able to seek out other private equity investors in order to diversify some of their risk. An interim investor agreement often details how members of the private equity consortium may use the period between signing the share or asset purchase agreement and closing the transaction to solicit other investors.   

The interim investment agreement sets forth the equity investment of each of the private equity funds and their corresponding ownership percentages in Newco. This section of the agreement also outlines a mechanism for adjusting equity commitments, typically done on a pro rata basis, to prepare for possible changes in the purchase price of the transaction or the availability or cost of debt financing.   

Equity Syndication

Depending on the number of private equity firms initially involved in the consortium, the interim investor agreement may want to detail an equity syndication procedure. Although the private equity firms covenant to coordinate an equity syndication strategy, they each may also be given limited rights to syndicate on their own.     

Some of the syndication rights that may be granted to the consortium’s members include:

Direct Equity Syndication

The private equity firms may be entitled to directly syndicate a specified portion of their equity investment in Newco without the consent of the other investors. The syndicating investor may possess “drag-along rights” enabling it to compel the non-syndicating investors to sell their respective ownership interests in Newco to the new investor on a pro rata basis. The non-syndicating investors may be granted corresponding “tag-along rights” permitting them to participate in any sale of ownership interests in Newco on a pro rata basis with the syndicating investor. Each new investor is required to become a party to the interim investor agreement and execute an equity commitment letter on the same terms as the initial investors. 

“Silent” Equity Syndication

Each private equity fund may also be entitled to what are called “silent” equity syndication rights. In a silent equity syndication, a private equity firm syndicates economic or beneficial interests in an entity entirely controlled by or affiliated with the firm. This provision allows each of the sponsors to syndicate equity interests in the private equity funds investing in Newco rather than ownership interests in Newco itself. In other words, silent equity syndicatees purchase an ownership interest at the shareholder level. Since silent syndicatees are indirect owners of Newco, the interim agreement explicitly denies them governance, liquidation, or other rights to be offered to the direct owners of Newco in the definitive shareholders agreement.        

The right of consortium members to syndicate their direct equity interests in Newco is usually subject to an anti-dilution provision requiring them to maintain a minimum percentage ownership interest or dollar amount invested in Newco.

Related Post: Private Equity Club Deals: Pre-Closing Investor Agreements and Covenants

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Leveraged buyouts of companies by private equity consortia – also known as private equity club deals – often capture the headlines and the imagination of the business press. Buyouts that demand substantial equity investments, such as the $900 million injected into the failed Florida lender BankUnited Financial by a private equity group that included WL Ross & Co., the Carlyle Group, and Blackstone, often require several private equity firms to club together to come up with enough capital. Besides the large equity investment required, what distinguishes club deals from garden-variety leveraged buyouts is the need for multiple firms to agree on how the transaction will be managed. In this post, we’ll take a look at some of the chief terms of interim investor agreements among members of a private equity consortium.      

Interim investor agreements for private equity consortia are by their nature temporary: the agreement terminates either upon the successful closing of the transaction or the deal’s termination in accordance with the share or asset purchase agreement. If the transaction proceeds as planned, an interim agreement details the steps that need to be taken to complete the deal and lays down the groundwork for how the business will be operated after closing. On the other hand, an interim agreement specifies how the consortium’s members will allocate responsibility for transaction costs and other liabilities, such as reverse break-up fees, should the deal founder. The agreement is signed on the same day the private equity funds sign their respective equity commitment letters, the banks issue their debt financing commitment letters, and the consortium’s shell acquisition vehicle, or “Newco,” enters into the purchase agreement with the target company.   

A few of the principal matters typically covered in an interim investor agreement include:

Pre-Closing Agreements and Covenants

The members of the private equity consortium agree to cooperate with one another to resolve any outstanding issues with the target company, negotiate definitive loan agreements with the consortium’s lenders, execute employment agreements with the future management of Newco, and nail down any other final terms and conditions. In addition to approving the purchase agreement and other transaction documents, the private equity firms memorialize their consent to the proposed transaction structure, usually by reference to the pre- and post-closing organizational charts of Newco and its subsidiaries prepared by the consortium’s accountants. If the target is a public company, the members promise to comply with all applicable securities laws and to file all necessary documents with governmental authorities, such as filings under the Securities Exchange Act’s Regulation 13D disclosing beneficial ownership interests. 

Finally, the private equity firms confirm how Newco will be managed during the period between the signing of the purchase agreement and closing.   The interim investor agreement identifies the number of representatives from each of the consortium’s members appointed to Newco’s interim board of directors, usually in proportion to their respective equity investments. Each of the private equity funds indemnifies (on a pro rata basis) and holds harmless Newco’s interim board of directors from any claims or other liabilities arising from any error or omission by a director.   Directors appointed to Newco’s interim board are likely to become named defendants in any future lawsuit regarding the transaction, whether the plaintiff is a consortium member, one or more of the financing banks, or the target company or its shareholders.       

Definitive Investors’ Agreement

The private equity sponsors agree to negotiate a definitive shareholders’ agreement promptly after the transaction closes and may identify any special tax or ERISA matters (in the case of a public company) that need to be addressed in the definitive agreement. Most important, this section of the interim agreement incorporates by reference the private equity consortium’s investor term sheet, which summarizes the principal terms of the future definitive shareholders’ agreement. 

Advisers’ Fees and Transaction Costs

The interim investment agreement also handles the allocation of transaction fees among the private equity firms’ advisory arms and how transaction costs (including liabilities from potential lawsuits) will be handled both in the event the deal closes and in the event the deal is terminated. Upon completion of the deal, the advisory arms of the private equity firms that sourced the deal receive a transaction fee that usually reflects their proportionate ownership interests in Newco. 

The agreement also specifies how the consortium’s financial, accounting, legal, and other advisers will be paid. If the deal closes successfully, the interim agreement provides that Newco picks up the private equity consortium’s advisers’ fees and expenses. The way advisers are paid in the event of a failed deal turns on whether or not the consortium is entitled to a break-up fee from the target. If there is no break-up fee in the purchase agreement, the private equity firms will share costs on a pro rata basis. If there is a break-up fee under the purchase agreement, then the amounts received will be applied first to pay the advisers’ fees and expenses and other transaction costs, with the remainder being distributed among the private equity firms. If the deal is terminated because one of the private equity funds fails to finance its equity commitment, the defaulting private equity firm will indemnify the non-defaulting firms and be liable for all transaction fees, expenses, and other liabilities.     

A private equity consortium’s interim agreement typically also requires confidentiality and specifies whether disputes will be resolved through arbitration or judicial process. In our next post, we’ll explain how interim investor agreements address the consortium members’ equity syndication procedures.

Related Post: Private Equity Club Deals: Equity Syndication

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link