Current observations of the effects of COVID-19 on private fund sponsors and limited partners
As the uncertainties resulting from the economic disruption caused by the pandemic continue, and as a follow up to our article published in May1 and to our October 1 webinar, Fund Formation in the Current Environment2, below are some observations of where things currently stand in the private funds market.
Fundraising observations
Fundraising investment strategies
Status of fundraising. Private equity fundraising since the beginning of the year remains very strong. Many investors view the economic impact caused by the pandemic as a temporary shock and have stayed the course. Many investors have continued to allocate capital to private equity funds, with the denominator effect less prominent than expected.
Status by investment strategies. In general, investors are very interested in strategies that back companies hit by the economic effect of the pandemic. Private fund sponsors and investors alike have increased their focus on distressed and real estate investments hoping to capitalize on assets that may only be in temporary distress. Certain secondary funds are seeing a record high of fundraising activities. While fundraising for private credit funds initially dropped substantially, private credit funds are also seeing increase in the amount of commitment raised, especially for funds centered around opportunistic strategies. Venture capital funds in the United States, Canada and Europe have substantially increased capital, especially in the tech, artificial intelligence, healthcare and biotech industries. There is also an increased appetite for bespoke fund of one arrangement and co-investments alongside funds investing in distressed assets. Most investors are focused on well-established funds and certain first-time fund sponsors are experiencing more difficulties proceeding with fundraising or facing longer fundraising periods.
Market trends
Sponsor focus. With the increased liquidity concerns imposed by economic disruption, fund sponsors are more active in seeking to modify certain terms during the fundraising process, such as increased flexibility with follow on investments, recycling mechanics, investment period and term duration and certain investment limitations, as well as, an attempt by private sponsors to preserve more flexible investment strategies.
Limited partner focus. Limited partners have been focused on issues more typical during a downturn of the economy. For example:
- Benchmark commitments. Limited partners are focused on investment limitations during the fundraising period. As generally these limitations are based on targeted commitments or a percentage of targeted commitments (known as benchmark commitments), limited partners have sought to lower the percentage of such targeted commitments in case the fund sponsor is not successful with the fundraising.
- Limited partner default. Although limited partner defaults on capital call obligations may occur, we have not seen limited partner default yet. However, concern has grown in limited partners that other limited partners may default, which could require the non-defaulting group to increase their capital contributions to complete a portfolio investment. Therefore, when making new investments, limited partners have been focused on the “overcall” limits for calling capital in an event another limited partner defaults, trying to determine their potential exposure for such defaults.
- Conflicts of interests. Limited partners have also been focused on conflicts of interests and transactions with affiliates notice and approval rights as such rights provide an increased protection of their investments during times of economic crises.
- Management fee base. Another area of focus has been the write offs and write downs resulting from significant markdowns in portfolio company value for purposes of calculating the management fee base after the expiration of the investment period and that such write offs and write downs reduce management fees.
Fundraising process. As initially expected, private fund sponsors and limited partners are experiencing a longer fundraising process. However, we also see some “one and done” closing for funds with distressed investment strategies. As government agencies are also impacted by COVID-19, marketing, in some non-US and non-Canadian jurisdictions, is taking more time than usual. Investors, fund sponsors and placement agents are still affected by the travel ban and the inability to conduct face to face meetings. This has proven especially difficult with first time meetings and attracting new investors. First-time fund sponsors, especially those that have not yet held in-person meetings with investors, have in particular slowed down their fundraising activities.
Fund operational observations
Communications with investors. Full transparency, communication and alignment of interests with limited partners are highly recommended during this crisis. It is advisable that fund sponsors be very diligent about communicating with investors and provide as much lead time as possible with respect to capital calls, partnership agreement terms amendments or execution of documents. Fund sponsors should also be diligent in providing complete information about liquidity, valuations and business continuity of the funds and their portfolio companies. Maintaining a strong relationship between sponsors and limited partners is increasingly important during this time of crisis.
Subsequent investor valuation issues. Private fund sponsors that have acquired material assets prior to the end of their fundraising are generally experiencing issues with substantial decreases in the value of such assets. Subsequent closing investors are traditionally expected to share in the income and expenses, gains and losses of the fund as if they had invested at the initial closing. Some subsequent closing investors may not be willing to subscribe to a fund where its investments to date have declined in value. As a result, we are seeing discussions about providing additional incentives for subsequent closing investors as earlier closing investors are motivated to ensure that subsequent closing investors contribute their share of the losses in connection with the lower valuations of the assets.
Credit facilities. As their portfolio companies’ valuations drop, liquidity is reduced, and covenant defaults are a real concern. Most portfolio company borrowers were able to maintain adequate financial performance through June 30 such that covenant compliance has not yet been an issue. In addition, asset valuations and audits are challenged by the very practical obstacles that exist because of social distancing. To date, lenders have been willing to work with their borrowers when accommodations have been necessary, but these accommodations come at a cost to the borrower; we have seen lenders require fees, pricing increases and tightening of restrictions in loan documents. Fund sponsors and their portfolio companies should undertake a full review of their credit facilities to determine what accommodations, if any, may become necessary in the next few quarters. Now is the time to take care of any post-closing matters before they become leverage for a default. If the review uncovers any potential issues, open discussions are encouraged because the relationship between the borrower and its lenders will be even more important than before.
Liquidity solutions. With credit lines fully drawn and sponsors making additional investments in their portfolio companies to maintain liquidity, fund sponsors are likely to seek more creative liquidity solutions. For example, private debt funds are well-positioned to offer supplementary capital. We have also seen sponsors seeking to raise structured equity funds, such as funds providing preferred equity investments in a fund’s portfolio. Other fund sponsors are seeking to obtain more flexible recycling mechanics and follow-on investment limitations. As noted above, other sponsors are seeking to reopen existing funds to admit additional investors and allow investors to increase their commitments. The market dislocation could also lead to unique opportunities relating to GP-led secondary transactions3.
Regulatory observations
Through various releases, speeches and enforcement actions, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) has conveyed a clear message that it remains an active overseer.
SEC relief. At the beginning of the pandemic, the SEC provided relief from certain filing and compliance obligations for those advisers challenged by the current situation and made it clear that reliance on relief orders does not represent increased risk of examinations4. At the same time, the SEC reminded investment advisers who intend to rely on the extended deadlines to continue to evaluate their obligations, including their fiduciary duties, under the federal securities laws.
SEC FAQs. On April 14, 2020, the SEC issued FAQs addressing the SEC’s responses to COVID-19-related issues faced by funds and their investment advisers5. The FAQs most relevant for private fund advisers relate to (i) required updates to Form ADV and (ii) failure to comply with Rule 206(4)-2 under the Advisers Act of 1940 (i.e., the Custody Rule) due to circumstances related to COVID-19, such as inadvertent receipt of client securities, failure to distribute the fund’s audited financial statements with 120 days after the fund’s fiscal year-end, failure to comply with the surprise examination requirement and the temporary inability to place physical certificates with a qualified custodian.
Recent SEC enforcement actions. In addition, the SEC has remained in full operation and has moved to conducting examinations off-site through correspondence.
- Consistent with its focus on disclosure and conflicts of interests, on April 22, 2020, the SEC settled an enforcement action against a private fund sponsor for failure to disclose that fees for certain services of its in-house operating partners were charged to portfolio companies, resulting in an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding allocation of expenses. The SEC alleged that the adviser disclosed the services provided by its in-house operating partners for seeking investments but failed to disclose that it would charge fees to the portfolio companies for those services6.
- Similarly, consistent with its focus on misallocation of expenses, on April 30, 2020, the SEC settled charges against an investment adviser and its principal for misappropriation of fund assets. The SEC order found that the adviser improperly charged personal travel expenses to the private fund it managed and breached its fiduciary duty by borrowing money from the fund to settle a personal trade7.
- On April 17, 2020, the SEC also settled an order with a registered investment adviser for material omissions from marketing materials. The SEC order found that the marketing materials represented that the adviser had direct management over an investment included in its track record, when it was actually an investment in a private fund advised by a third party8.
- On May 26, 2020, the SEC agreed to settle charges with a registered investment adviser alleging that the adviser failed to implement and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material nonpublic information. The order found that the adviser’s compliance policies failed to account for special circumstances presented by having an employee of the adviser serve on the portfolio company’s board while that employee continued to participate in trading decisions regarding the portfolio company9.
- On September 17, 2020, the SEC settled an enforcement action against a private fund sponsor for failing to update a Schedule 13D filing in a timely manner10.
The SEC remains active overseeing investment advisers and while providing relief for those advisers affected by COVID-19, remains focused on its examination priorities. Even under current circumstances, investment advisers should review their existing practices, policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the SEC’s examination priorities and areas of focus and with their fiduciary duty obligations. Investors should be aware and take into account these specific areas of SEC focus when conducting their diligence with respect to a potential investment.
As the full impact of COVID-19 and the resulting economic dislocation still remains uncertain, we will continue to monitor the situation and continue to keep you informed of any future developments.
_________________________
1 For more information please see our article, “Current observations of COVID-19’s impact on private fund sponsors and limited partners”.
2 You can register to watch a recording of our October 1, 2020 webinar here.
3 For more information, please see our article, “Private equity GP-led secondary fund transactions”.
4 For more information, please see our alert, “SEC extends Form ADV and Form PF filing deadlines for investment advisers affected by COVID-19”. Further, on March 25, 2020, the SEC issued a new order (Advisers Act Release No. 5469) that superseded the original order and extended the filing obligations to filings with original deadlines falling on or before June 30, 2020. It also eliminated the requirement that an investment adviser include a brief description of why it could not satisfy the filing or delivery requirement, as applicable, by the original deadline and the estimated date it expects to satisfy such filing or delivery requirement.
5 Available here.
6 See In the Matter of Monomoy Capital Management, L.P. available here.
7 See In the Matter of Monsoon Capital LLC and Gautam Prakash available here.
8 See In the Matter of Old Ironsides Energy, LLC available here.
9 In the matter of Ares Management LLC, available here.
10 See in the matter of WCAS Management Corporation, available here.
Le mois dernier, le Canada a publié sa première Stratégie industrielle de défense (la Stratégie), qui souligne l’engagement du Canada à développer une base industrielle de défense solide et à stimuler la croissance économique. Ces efforts pourraient aussi comprendre le renforcement de l’état de préparation à la biodéfense et aux contre-mesures médicales, ce qui pourrait constituer des débouchés pour le secteur canadien des sciences de la vie en raison de l’importance accordée aux capacités nationales en ce sens et de la nécessité d’atténuer les risques d’urgences sanitaires.
Développement de contre-mesures médicales au Canada
Comme indiqué dans les bulletins précédents, le quatrième pilier de la Stratégie est axé sur la « sécurisation des chaînes d’approvisionnement pour les intrants et les biens clés » par le renforcement de la production nationale et le stockage de ressources. L’accent est mis tout particulièrement sur les contre-mesures médicales, en précisant que nos « alliés ont établi un lien explicite entre l’état de préparation à la biodéfense et aux contre-mesures médicales et leur sécurité économique et nationale, en élaborant de nouvelles stratégies et de nouveaux mécanismes pour faire progresser ces travaux ». Les contre-mesures médicales désignent divers produits réglementés pouvant être utilisés pour protéger la population lors d’une situation d’urgence de grande ampleur, comme l’éclosion d’une maladie ou une attaque impliquant des armes chimiques, biologiques ou nucléaires. Il peut s’agir de vaccins, de médicaments thérapeutiques et produits biologiques, de dispositifs de tests diagnostiques, des équipements de protection individuelle ou industrielle, et d’autres dispositifs médicaux. Les contre-mesures médicales sont essentielles à la réduction et à l’atténuation des dommages lors d’une urgence de santé publique.
Exploiter les voies réglementaires mises en place lors de la pandémie de COVID-19
Pendant et après la pandémie de COVID-19, le Canada a mis en place plusieurs nouvelles voies réglementaires comme mécanismes d’accélération des approbations de produits médicaux, ce qui pourrait offrir au gouvernement des options pour déployer des contre-mesures médicales afin de faire face aux risques pour la santé publique. Au début de la pandémie, Santé Canada a émis diverses ordonnances provisoires pour permettre l’importation et la vente de médicaments et de dispositifs médicaux qui n’avaient pas eu l’approbation des voies réglementaires traditionnelles. Or, Santé Canada a plutôt fait confiance aux voies d’approbation réglementaire et de l’exemption de certaines exigences en homologation de produits des pays impliqués dans la transaction. Beaucoup de ces règles provisoires ont depuis été officiellement intégrées à la réglementation en vertu de la Loi sur les aliments et drogues et ont été appliquées bien après la COVID-19. Conformément au Règlement sur les aliments et drogues, Santé Canada tient à jour la Liste des maladies qui menacent la santé publique et utilisera une procédure d’autorisation modifiée pour les médicaments d’urgence de santé publique pouvant traiter les affections figurant sur la liste. De même, le Règlement sur les instruments médicaux a établi une liste d’instruments médicaux répondant à un besoin urgent de santé publique, ce qui permet à Santé Canada d’autoriser la commercialisation de ces instruments de manière accélérée. Ces outils réglementaires sont utilisés automatiquement quand une situation médicale présente un grand risque pour la santé publique au Canada et nécessite une action immédiate pour contrer ce risque.
Le rôle de la Stratégie dans le renforcement du régime réglementaire de la santé au Canada
La stratégie prévoit que le Canada adoptera une approche proactive en matière de planification en amont des crises sanitaires. Le gouvernement entend s’assurer que les produits médicaux sont déjà disponibles au Canada afin qu’ils puissent être distribués rapidement en cas d’urgence. D’autres modifications récentes au Règlement sur les aliments et drogues permettent de prépositionner au Canada tous les médicaments d’urgence en santé publique, ce qui signifie qu’ils peuvent être importés dans des installations d’entreposage canadiennes avant que leur mise sur le marché n’ait été autorisée. La Stratégie s’appuie sur ces fondements, en faisant référence à l’organisme existant Préparation aux crises sanitaires Canada (PCSC), un organisme opérationnel spécial au sein d’Innovation, Sciences et Développement économique Canada (ISDE), et à un nouveau Fonds des sciences de la vie, lesquels « collaborent avec des partenaires internationaux et de soutenir l’élaboration et la production de contre-mesures médicales ». PCSC supervise la Stratégie en matière de biofabrication et de sciences de la vie du Canada, qui vise à développer un secteur national des sciences de la vie fort et compétitif doté de capacités de biofabrication de pointe, en mettant l’accent sur la capacité à se préparer et à faire face aux futures priorités et crises sanitaires. Dans cette optique, il y aura des occasions pour les fabricants de nouer des collaborations de recherche et des accords commerciaux ou d’approvisionnement liés aux contre-mesures médicales financées par des programmes fédéraux.
Étroitement lié aux capacités nationales, le pilier III de la stratégie implique « Investissement ciblé pour renforcer un secteur canadien de la défense novateur », avec la promesse que le gouvernement fédéral « soutiendr[a] la recherche et le développement, protéger[a] la propriété intellectuelle, soutiendr[a] les petites et moyennes entreprises, investir[a] dans les compétences et la formation, et encourager[a] les exportations afin de créer un secteur de la défense agile et concurrentiel à l’échelle mondiale ». La nécessité de favoriser le développement de la propriété intellectuelle (PI) et la conservation des droits du Canada est mentionnée à plusieurs reprises dans la Stratégie. Par exemple, la Stratégie prévoit l’établissement de partenariats officiels avec l’industrie canadienne qui « [assureront] la propriété et le contrôle nationaux de la propriété intellectuelle (PI) et des capacités essentielles. » La Stratégie reconnaît l’immense talent des établissements canadiens et la précieuse recherche qui y est menée actuellement et qui est déjà financée par des subventions de recherche d’organismes tels que le Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie et les Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada, et fait aussi référence à l’engagement de 1,6 milliard de dollars pour de nouveaux fonds de recherche dans le budget de 2025. Cette prise de conscience de la nécessité de promouvoir et de soutenir l’innovation au Canada laisse présager des possibilités de financement, notamment dans les domaines où le Canada accuse un retard en matière de production nationale et où des engagements d’investissement et de fabrication au Canada peuvent être pris.
Prochaines étapes
Dans les prochains mois, nous prévoyons que le gouvernement du Canada publiera d’autres directives et des mesures de suivi. L’équipe de défense des conservateurs poursuivra sa couverture de perspectives sur la défense au Canada en publiant une analyse supplémentaire pour donner des précisions sur l’incidence de la Stratégie sur de multiples secteurs.