PRIVATE EQUITY
14 Jul 2025
Private equity (PE) funds are carefully structured investment vehicles usually adopted by institutional and high-net-worth investors. The intention is to seek high returns on investment outside of public markets. However, while such funds are designed for peak financial performance, it’s important to understand that they’re complex tools subject to significant legal and tax nuances—particularly when considering hedge fund vs private equity potential.
We’re going to take a closer look at this concept, exploring the private equity legal issues, tax structures, compliance obligations, and operational risks that investors need to consider. This article also takes a global rather than jurisdictional view of PE funds, ensuring relevance no matter where investors are located.
PE firms are usually structured as limited partnerships, known as the LP-GP model. General partners (GPs) actively manage the fund and make decisions, while limited partners (LPs) contribute capital, taking a passive role.
There are jurisdictional variations related to private equity value creation that investors need to be mindful of. Some areas–such as Delaware in the U.S., Luxembourg, and the Cayman Islands—offer more favorable legal or tax frameworks than others. Additionally, formation timelines can depend on administrative requirements. Mandated governing documents can vary, too, with Limited Partnership Agreements (LPAs) or Private Placement Memoranda (PPM) typical in most.
There are certain legal documents to arrange during the PE capital-raising stage. These include subscription agreements formalizing each investor’s commitment and side letters to tailor specific rights or reporting privileges. The negotiation of rights and obligations tends to revolve around the nuances of investment terms, influence over governance, and the structure of fees. Beyond these elements, fund managers need to comply with relevant legislation and regulatory requirements in onboarding investors, including Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) checks.
Legislative and regulatory standards PE funds must adhere to vary globally. These are governed by specific jurisdictional frameworks. For instance, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S., the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the U.K., the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) in the E.U., or other similar international bodies.
Funds are also obligated to maintain strict transparency processes, including meeting beneficial owner disclosure standards and regular investor reporting. This helps meet AML standards, too. Furthermore, cross-border funds are subject to additional legislative layers, particularly around tax reporting and data security.
PE funds face a range of legal risks throughout acquisition, including hidden liability issues, areas of regulatory exposure, and contractual mismanagement, among others. This is why it is so important for legal teams or private equity services to undertake thorough due diligence in the early stages, focusing on liability discovery practices and uncovering any potential deal structuring concerns.
As the transaction progresses, PE funds’ legal representatives can use representations and warranties to provide clarity on the responsibilities between the buyer and the seller. Additionally, building indemnity clauses, non-compete clauses, and escrow arrangements into the acquisition deal helps minimize impact from unforeseen issues.
Fund managers and GPs hold significant fiduciary and legal responsibilities toward LPs. This includes exercising duties of care and loyalty in decision-making that reflects the best interests of investors. They must also take action to mitigate potential conflicts of interest, alongside arranging transparent auditing and reporting that meets both internal and regulatory requirements.
Robust fund governance structures help to maintain oversight of these responsibilities. However, failures in this area—particularly via reporting misrepresentations—can result in litigation, investigations by regulators, and investor withdrawal that weakens the fund.
Understanding the tax treatment of PE funds is essential. One of the key nuances is that capital interest—the share of profits GPs earn—is typically taxed as capital gains, which can provide more favorable terms. However, management fees GPs receive are usually taxed as ordinary income. This requires careful tax planning by GPs.
Furthermore, the international domicile in which the fund is based can affect taxation. Many PE firms make choices to leverage tax neutrality or access double-taxation treaties. Cross-border investments can complicate matters, though, requiring attention to how the jurisdictional variances affect withholding requirements and reporting. Investors must also understand that regardless of fund location their individual domestic reporting requirements are likely to apply.
In international situations, Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and intermediate holding companies are often used to help navigate legal risks, maintain investor privacy, and optimize taxation. That said, there is increasing scrutiny from legislative and tax authorities worldwide on firms engaging in treaty shopping; establishing entities in jurisdictions with favorable tax treaty terms. Firms are increasingly expected to align with programs such as the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) and Pillar Two, which address gaps in international tax rules and set minimum tax rates on multinationals.
Managers need to structure the exit—whether through an IPO, trade sale, or secondary sale—in ways that optimize returns while mitigating tax leakage or regulatory issues. There can also be legal difficulties revolving around the execution of final distributions and clawback provisions. Indeed, during the liquidation or winding down of a fund, it’s not uncommon to face timing challenges that impact the final value and even disputes around value disagreements. Therefore, firms must engage legal teams to develop mitigation strategies before dissolution begins.
PE firms must take steps to address the risks evident in fund operations, including acquiring appropriate insurance coverage, incorporating strong indemnity provisions into contracts, and committing to regular legal audits. Additionally, contracts need to feature clear dispute resolution clauses, protections relevant to the jurisdiction, and mechanisms governing how arbitration should proceed. This not only manages risks but also mitigates drawn-out litigation.
PE funds also typically adopt processes to prepare for regulatory scrutiny. This usually involves investing in a robust compliance structure that exceeds common legal standards and includes regular internal audits.
The PE legislative landscape is evolving, with ESG disclosure requirements an increasing focus for regulators in major global markets and growing scrutiny into whether firms’ investments meet the jurisdiction’s sustainability obligations. This reflects the current trends for regulatory tightening in general across the globe, alongside greater numbers of investor activists applying pressure.
Additionally, legislation regarding digital tools continues to develop. PE firms continue to be subject to both local and international data protection standards, alongside safeguarding against cybersecurity threats. Failures can result in penalties and impact value creation.
Fund structuring, regulatory compliance, investor agreements, governance duties, and tax efficiency are among the primary issues.
The majority are limited partnerships, featuring a general partner who manages the fund and limited partners who are passive investors.
Due diligence, indemnities, warranties, and shareholder agreement negotiations are typical hurdles.
Yes, with cross-border investments particularly impacted. Funds must navigate treaty benefits, tax withholding rules, and reporting obligations.
Compliance ensures adherence to legal standards across jurisdictions, preventing penalties and supporting investor transparency.
Most are resolved through contractual arbitration clauses or litigation in the selected jurisdiction.
Chen, J. (2024, August 6). Know Your Client (KYC): What It Means and Compliance Requirements. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
OECD. (2025). Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-beps.html
Australian Government. (2024). Use environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices in your business. Business.gov.au. https://business.gov.au/environmental-management/use-environmental-social-and-governance-esg-practices-in-your-business
Merger And Acquisition
14 July 2025
A leveraged buyout—often shortened to LBO—is a financial transaction in which a buyer acquires a company primarily with borrowed money, pledging the target’s own assets as collateral. Ascot helps to structure and finance LBOs worldwide, blending local regulations with investor expectations so clients can pursue ambitious acquisitions across borders. Because the technique magnifies gains and […]
Offshore Company
27 May 2025
Offshore companies are increasingly popular tools in the global marketplace. The difference between offshore and onshore company types is that the former is registered in a jurisdiction other than the home country of its owner or primary operations. Onshore companies are typically formed and function in the same single jurisdiction. Leveraging offshore companies legally and […]
Tax Consulting
14 July 2025
A deferred tax asset is an item on a company’s balance sheet that reflects taxes it has already paid—or is expected to recover in the future—often due to a mismatch between accounting rules and tax regulations. In simpler terms, it represents an overpayment or advance payment of taxes that a company can apply to reduce […]