跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

analyzing-key-person-event-provisions

Evaluates key person clause triggers, consequences, and cure mechanics in partnership documentation. Use when analyzing key person provisions, assessing management stability risk, or structuring departure protections.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md6.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Analyzing Key Person Event Provisions

When To Use

  • Reviewing or drafting key person clauses in LPA, side letter, or GP agreement contexts
  • Assessing management concentration risk during fund due diligence
  • Evaluating whether a proposed GP personnel change triggers a key person event
  • Structuring departure protections or cure mechanics for a new fund formation
  • Advising LPs on the adequacy of key person protections in existing fund documentation

Inputs To Gather

  • Partnership agreement (LPA) — full executed version including all amendments and side letters modifying key person provisions
  • Key person list — named individuals designated as key persons, including any tiered classifications (e.g., "Category A" vs. "Category B" key persons)
  • Devotion-of-time requirements — minimum time commitment thresholds (e.g., "substantially all business time," specific percentage thresholds, or exclusivity requirements)
  • Trigger event definitions — death, disability, departure, cause termination, bankruptcy, regulatory disqualification, or other specified events
  • Current GP personnel status — whether any key person has departed, reduced involvement, or is subject to pending investigation or health issues
  • Side letter provisions — any LP-specific key person modifications, additional named persons, or enhanced trigger rights
  • LPAC composition and role — whether the LP advisory committee has authority over cure, waiver, or replacement approvals

Workflow

  1. Identify all key person designations — Extract the named individuals and any classification tiers. Note whether the provision uses an "all of" or "any X of Y" trigger structure. Flag if the key person list is static or subject to GP modification.

  2. Map trigger events — Catalog each defined triggering event (death, disability, departure, cause, conviction, regulatory bar, bankruptcy). Assess whether "departure" includes voluntary resignation, involuntary removal, or reduction below a time threshold. Note any carve-outs (e.g., permitted board service, successor fund activity). [VERIFY] whether disability definition cross-references a specific standard (e.g., ADA, insurance policy definition, or number of consecutive days).

  3. Analyze consequence mechanics — Determine the immediate consequence of a key person event:

    • Investment period suspension — new investments halted; follow-on investments may or may not be permitted
    • Investment period termination — permanent end to new deployment
    • GP removal right — LP vote to remove GP triggered
    • Fund termination right — LP vote to wind down the fund
    • Note whether consequences are automatic or require LP vote, and the applicable voting threshold (simple majority, supermajority, LPAC approval)
  4. Evaluate cure and reinstatement provisions — Determine whether the GP has a cure period (typically 60–180 days). Identify what constitutes a valid cure: appointment of a replacement approved by LPAC or LP vote, reinstatement of the departed key person, or other specified remedies. Assess whether the investment period resumes automatically upon cure or requires affirmative LP consent.

  5. Review replacement approval mechanics — Identify who approves replacement key persons (LPAC, LP majority, supermajority). Note whether the GP can propose replacements or whether LPs have nomination rights. Flag any veto rights held by specific anchor LPs via side letters.

  6. Assess practical adequacy — Evaluate concentration risk: a fund with two key persons under an "all of" trigger is more exposed than one with an "any two of four" structure. Consider whether devotion-of-time language is enforceable and monitorable. Flag provisions that are unusually GP-friendly (long cure periods, GP-controlled replacement, no automatic suspension) or LP-friendly (hair-trigger events, no cure, automatic termination).

Output

Produce a structured analysis report containing:

  • Key Person Roster — table listing each named key person, their classification tier, role, and time commitment requirement
  • Trigger Event Matrix — grid mapping each key person to each trigger type, noting whether the event applies and any carve-outs
  • Consequence Summary — description of what happens upon trigger, including whether consequences are automatic or vote-dependent, with applicable thresholds
  • Cure Mechanics — cure period duration, permissible cure actions, approval requirements for replacements, and reinstatement terms
  • Risk Assessment — concentration risk rating (high/medium/low), identification of GP-favorable or LP-favorable deviations from market terms, and flagged gaps or ambiguities
  • Side Letter Overlay — any LP-specific modifications that alter the base key person framework
  • Recommendations — specific suggested revisions, additional protections, or negotiation points depending on whether the client is GP-side or LP-side

Quality Checks

  • Confirm every named key person in the LPA is accounted for in the roster, including side letter additions
  • Verify trigger definitions are quoted or closely paraphrased — do not paraphrase loosely enough to change meaning
  • Cross-check cure period lengths against market norms (typically 90–180 days for institutional funds) and flag outliers
  • Ensure consequence mechanics distinguish between suspension and termination of the investment period — these have materially different economic impacts
  • Confirm voting thresholds are accurately stated, including whether they are measured by commitments, interests, or headcount
  • [VERIFY] applicable state partnership law default rules that may fill gaps where the LPA is silent on key person mechanics
  • Flag any circular or internally inconsistent provisions (e.g., a cure requiring LPAC approval when the LPAC composition itself depends on the departed key person)

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Evaluates activist investor campaigns with thesis assessment, proposed changes, and likely outcome analysis. Use when analyzing activist situations, evaluating campaign theses, or assessing activist track records.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CaseMark/skills462026年10月22日 更新

Evaluates corporate vulnerability to shareholder activism with governance assessment, valuation gaps, and operational improvement opportunities. Use when assessing activist risk, identifying vulnerabilities, or preparing defensive analyses.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CaseMark/skills462026年10月22日 更新

Evaluates bolt-on acquisitions for existing platforms with strategic fit, synergy quantification, and return contribution analysis. Use when screening add-on targets, building platform acquisition strategies, or modeling tuck-in economics.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CaseMark/skills462026年10月22日 更新

Evaluates signal half-life, turnover implications, and capacity constraints for systematic alpha factors. Use when analyzing signal persistence, evaluating factor decay, or estimating strategy capacity.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CaseMark/skills462026年10月22日 更新

Evaluates alternative data sources including satellite, NLP sentiment, web scraping, and geolocation for alpha signal generation. Use when analyzing alt data, evaluating new data sources, or integrating non-traditional signals.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CaseMark/skills462026年10月22日 更新

Evaluates competition law exposure with market definition, HHI analysis, and remedy estimation for proposed transactions. Use when assessing merger clearance risk, analyzing market concentration, or preparing HSR filings.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

CaseMark/skills462026年10月22日 更新

查看 CaseMark 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题