Co-Investments: Positives and Pitfalls

Jul 9, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

With direct investments, co-investors have direct ownership interest in the portfolio company (or a holding company) alongside the sponsor’s fund. While this has its advantages, it has its disadvantages as well. The co-investor will need to be at least somewhat actively involved, since its investment will not be controlled by the sponsor, and the documents of the underlying portfolio company (or holding company) will need to be tailored to address the needs and rights of minority co-investors (tag-along rights, preemptive rights, registration rights, information rights, veto rights, etc., all as more fully discussed below). Another complexity is that management often holds its interests at this level, and as a result, the documents can become very involved very quickly.

Another alternative is investing through one or more sponsor-controlled vehicles. In this scenario, the sponsor controls the investment much like it would a fund investment. While this structure may seem convenient, the co-investor will want to make sure it is essentially in the same place it would have been (from a rights perspective) had the investment been made directly. This means making sure all rights at the portfolio company (or holding company) level flow through the SPV to the co-investor (e.g., flow-through of preemptive, tag-along, registration and information rights). This is often a somewhat tedious task and one that most likely has not been at the top of the sponsor’s “to do” list.

Whether structured as a direct investment or as an investment in one or more sponsor-controlled SPVs, the legal expenses incurred by the co-investors are likely to be significantly greater than with an ordinary fund investment, with that expense, however, obviously being more than offset by the fact that most co-investments are on a no-fee, no-carry basis. The time required to complete a co-investment will also generally be longer than for a typical fund investment.

Another decision to be made is how much the co-investor should be involved in the underlying transaction. Should it perform due diligence on the portfolio company? Should it review and comment with regard to the underling transaction documents? Should it just close its eyes? Some co-investors are actively involved, while others totally rely on the sponsor. A middle-ground approach that is often taken entails speaking with the sponsor’s deal counsel about its due diligence approach, reviewing its formal due diligence materials on a high level and following up with any noted concerns. A similar approach is often taken with regard to the underlying deal documents (discussion of structure and documents with the sponsor’s deal counsel, high-level review of key documents, etc.).

No matter the structure or what level of due diligence is done, the critical requirement is that the interests of the co-investor and the sponsor be aligned as closely as possible. Perhaps most importantly, the entry and exit rights of the co-investor and the sponsor must be in alignment. This means making sure it is required that the securities held by the co-investor be bought and sold at the same time and on the same terms as those held by the sponsor and that the co-investor is protected against future dilution from other vehicles controlled by the sponsor (including any sponsor fund).  Along these lines, the co-investor should have tag-along rights (conversely, the sponsor will likely want drag-along rights) and appropriate registration rights. To make sure the co-investor is not unfairly diluted or treated, it should also seek preemptive rights from the company and rights of first refusal on sales by other investors (if such sales are allowed). The co-investor would be well-advised to seek veto rights (at least requiring the affirmative vote of a majority of non-sponsor investors) over certain fundamental events (e.g., fundamental change in the business of the underlying company). The co-investor should also make sure sufficient information is to be provided to it, with regard to the vehicle in which it is directly investing, as well as with regard to the underlying entity/business. Additionally, express provisions should be included relating to transactions with affiliates and limitations on fees paid to sponsor-controlled entities.

In summary, while co-investments offer a terrific opportunity for potential co-investors, care should be taken with respect to the economic terms of the investment, the structure of the investment, the due diligence performed and the terms of the underlying transaction documents to make certain the co-investor is really getting the benefit of the bargain it thinks it has struck.    

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.