Secondary Market Advisory Newsletter – Fall 2018

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 

  • 3i Group
  • Aberdeen Asset Management
  • ABRY Partners
  • Access Capital Partners
  • Accel-KKR
  • Advent International
  • AEA Investors
  • Alcentra Capital
  • Alinda Capital Partners
  • Allianz Capital Partners
  • American Securities
  • AMP Capital Investors
  • Antin Infrastructure Partners
  • Apax Partners
  • Aquila Capital
  • ArcLight Capital Partners
  • Arcus Infrastructure Partners
  • Ares Management
  • Atlas Capital Private Equity
  • Audax Group
  • Aviva Investors Global Services
  • AXA Group
  • Axium Infrastructure
  • Bain Capital
  • Bain Capital Credit
  • Baring Private Equity Partners
  • Benefit Street Partners
  • Berkshire Partners
  • BlackRock
  • BlueBay Asset Management
  • Bridgepoint Advisers
  • Brightwood Capital Advisors
  • Brookfield Capital Partners
  • Caltius Structured Capital
  • Capital Dynamics
  • CapitalSpring
  • Castlelake
  • Catterton Partners
  • Cerberus Capital Management
  • Clyde Blowers Capital
  • Comvest Partners
  • Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners
  • Crescent Capital Group
  • CRG
  • Cube Infrastructure Managers
  • CVC Capital Partners
  • Dalmore Capital
  • DIF
  • ECI Partners
  • Endeavour Capital
  • Endless
  • EQT
  • Equitix
  • Excellere Partners
  • First State Investments
  • Fondi Italiani per le Infrastrutture
  • FSN Capital
  • Gemspring Capital
  • Glennmont Partners
  • Global Infrastructure Partners
  • Golding Capital Partners
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Golub Capital
  • Graphite Capital Management
  • GSO Capital Partners
  • H2 Equity Partners
  • Harbert Credit Solutions
  • Hayfin Capital Management
  • Highbridge Capital Management
  • Housatonic Partners
  • iCON Infrastructure
  • Impax Asset Management Group
  • Inflexion Private Equity
  • Infracapital
  • InfraRed Capital Partners
  • InfraVia Capital Partners
  • Intermediate Capital Group
  • JPMorgan
  • Juniper Capital
  • Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors
  • KGAL Energy
  • KKR
  • KPS Capital Partners
  • LBC Credit Partners
  • Leonard Green & Partners
  • Lion Capital
  • Luxcara
  • Macquarie Asset Management
  • Mainsail Partners
  • Maranon Capital
  • Marguerite Fund
  • Marlin Equity Partners
  • Mason Wells
  • MC Credit Partners
  • Medley Capital
  • Meridiam Infrastructure
  • Merit Capital Partners
  • Merit Energy Company
  • Mirova
  • MML Capital Partners
  • Monroe Capital
  • Montagu Private Equity
  • Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners
  • New Energy Capital
  • New Mountain Capital
  • Nordic Capital
  • Northstar Capital
  • Oaktree Capital Management
  • Omnes Capital
  • Owl Rock Capital Partners
  • Pacific Equity Partners
  • Park Square Capital
  • Parthenon Capital Partners
  • Partners Group
  • Peak Rock Capital
  • Peninsula Capital Partners 
  • PennantPark
  • Permira Debt Managers
  • PNC Mezzanine Capital
  • Polaris Private Equity
  • Prospect Capital
  • Providence Equity Partners
  • Prudential Capital Group
  • RoundTable Healthcare Partners
  • Rutland Partners
  • Sentinel Capital Partners
  • Siguler Guff
  • Silver Lake Management
  • Silver Oak Services Partners
  • SK Capital Partners
  • Starwood Energy Group
  • SteelRiver Infrastructure Partners
  • Stellus Capital Management
  • Stirling Square Capital Partners
  • Stonepeak Infrastructure Partners
  • Summit Partners
  • Sun Capital Partners
  • SUSI Partners
  • TA Associates Management
  • Tenex Capital Management
  • The Forestland Group
  • THL Credit
  • Tikehau IM
  • Torqx Capital Partners
  • Trilantic Capital Partners
  • Trivest Partners
  • UBS
  • Vortus Investments
  • Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe
  • Westview Capital Partners
  • White Oak Global Advisors
  • WP Global Partners
  • Yukon Partners

 

 

 

 

 

 Hedge Fund Manager Prices

  • 1609 Fund Ltd
  • Aarkad Heather (Creditor) Claim Amount
  • Abax Arhat
  • Altima Restructure 
  • Amaranth
  • Ambit Bridge Loan Fund
  • Ancile (AF-KY Wind-Down)
  • Arche Fund
  • Avenue Europe
  • Bennelong
  • CAM Opportunity Fund
  • Carrington Holding Corporation (CHC)
  • Centerbridge Capital Partners
  • Cerberus International
  • CFIP Overseas
  • Cheyne Special Situations
  • Claren Road Credit
  • CRC Credit
  • DBGM
  • D.E. Shaw
  • Discus
  • EOS Credit Opportunities
  • Eton Park Overseas
  • Farallon
  • Firebird Republics
  • Fortelus Special Situations
  • Fortress Value Recovery
  • Galileo Capital Partners Ltd
  • GCM Little Arbor
  • Glenview
  • GLG EM Growth
  • Golden Tree
  • GSIP
  • H21 BRIC +
  • Harbinger L
  • Harbinger PE
  • HB Multi-Strat
  • Highland Credit
  • Highland Crusader
  • Highland Crusader Fund II
  • IIG
  • King Street Capital
  • Lampe Conway (LC Capital)
  • Lancelot (Net-Cash Position) Claim Amount
  • Lispenard
  • Magnetar Capital
  • Marathon Special Opportunity
  • Mariner Opportunities
  • MCL
  • Medley Opportunity/CK Pearl (June 2014 Reporting Date)
    Metage
  • Mount Kellett
  • Och Ziff Asia
  • Och Ziff Domestic Partners
  • Och Ziff Europe
  • Och Ziff Global Special Investments
  • Och Ziff Structured Products
  • One East Partners
  • Passport Global Strategies
  • Pennant Winward
  • Pentagone Bernini Fund Ltd
  • Perella Weinberg ABV
  • Perry Capital
  • Plainfield
  • Pond View
  • Pura Vida
  • Quantek
  • QVT CSI
  • QVT SLV
  • Raptor Private
  • Redwood
  • Redwood Argentina
  • Ritchie Capital
  • Rohatyn Group Global Opps
  • Sector Specit I Fund
  • Serengeti Opportunities
  • Shepherd Investment International
  • Silver Point Capital
  • SphereInvest Global High Yield Liquidation Fund Limited
  • SPT Offshore
  • SPT Onshore
  • Strategic Value Restructuring - SP
  • Strategic Value Restructuring - SPV (Slice)
  • Styx International
  • Styx Partners
  • Sun Capital Securities
  • Talisman
  • Tiger Veda
  • TPG Axon
  • Treesdale Fixed Income
  • Tudor Legacy
  • Valens Offshore
  • ValueAct Capital
  • Warwick Capital
  • West Face Long Term Opportunities

 

 
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.

Secondary Market Advisory Newsletter – Fall 2018 2018-11-09T00:00:00.0000000 /insights/publications/valuation/secondary-market-advisory-newsletter-october-2018 /-/media/assets/images/publications/thumbnails/secondary-market-advisory-newsletter-fall-2018.ashx publication {71536F0F-F66B-4292-868C-9CFD65BB6207} {65648E61-ED08-40DF-AEE6-DB90ABD49289} {95D7F66C-11BB-4E7D-B07C-48874A321F98}

Related Services

Duff & Phelps Valuation Advisory Services

Valuation Advisory

Secondary Market Advisory Services

Transfer services to general partners and limited partners in alternative investments.

Secondary Market Advisory Services
Duff & Phelps Valuation Advisory Services

Valuation Advisory

Portfolio Valuation

Alternative investment valuation for private equity and hedge funds.

Portfolio Valuation

Case Studies

Insights