Skip to main content
MENU
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • LOGIN
  • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • Alternatives
    • Consultants
    • Coronavirus
    • Courts
    • Defined Contribution
    • ESG
    • ETFs
    • Face to Face
    • Hedge Funds
    • Industry Voices
    • Investing
    • Money Management
    • Opinion
    • Partner Content
    • Pension Funds
    • Private Equity
    • Real Estate
    • Russia-Ukraine War
    • SECURE 2.0
    • Special Reports
    • White Papers
  • Rankings & Awards
    • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
    • Top-Performing Managers
    • Largest Money Managers
    • DC Money Managers
    • DC Record Keepers
    • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
    • World's Largest Retirement Funds
    • Best Places to Work in Money Management
    • Excellence & Innovation Awards
    • WPS Innovation Awards
    • Eddy Awards
  • ETFs
    • Latest ETF News
    • Fund Screener
    • Education Center
    • Equities
    • Fixed Income
    • Commodities
    • Actively Managed
    • Alternatives
    • ESG Rated
  • ESG
    • Latest ESG News
    • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
    • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
    • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
    • Impact Investing
    • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
    • ESG Rated ETFs
  • Defined Contribution
    • Latest DC News
    • DC Money Manager Rankings
    • DC Record Keeper Rankings
    • Innovations in DC
    • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
    • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
    • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
  • Searches & Hires
    • Latest Searches & Hires News
    • Searches & Hires Database
    • RFPs
  • Performance Data
    • P&I Research Center
    • Earnings Tracker
    • Endowment Returns Tracker
    • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
    • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
    • Pension Risk Transfer Database
    • Future of Investments Research Series
    • Charts & Infographics
    • Polls
  • Careers
  • Events
    • View All Conferences
    • View All Webinars
    • 2023 Defined Contribution East
    • 2023 ESG Investing
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. COURTS
August 02, 2011 01:00 AM

Delaware court ruling may put LP rights in question

James C. Brennan
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware in Parkcentral Global LP, vs. Brown Investment Management LP, the general consensus by the legal and financial communities appears to be that general partners who wish to bar access to confidential information between limited partners can do so by simply inserting appropriate wording into the original or even an amended limited partner agreement.

    If the reasoning for this consensus is limited to a reading of the P-G case, there would be no reason to disagree. However, when you compare the statutory wording with the court's decision, you should reach a more cautionary conclusion about rewriting an LPA. The issue is not cut and dried. General partners and authors of limited partnership agreements should not assume that LPs can be denied all access to information about other LPs.

    Nothing found in the statute serves to completely deny the right of access. It simply allows for the imposition of reasonable “restrictions” on that right. So how does the statute align with the P-G case? This critical answer was not addressed by the court; consequently, it would be a mistake to assume the P-G decision permits general partners and/or authors of LPAs to write wording into the LPA that prohibits access to limited partner information by other LPs of the fund.

    The court's reasoning

    Keep in mind that the court rejected all of the arguments posited for denying or barring access to information by limited partners under the guise of “reasonable restrictions”; so the case remains a victory for LPs who wish to exercise their statutory right of access to information. Furthermore, setting aside the court's incidental reference about denying access to information by way of inserting more explicit wording in partnership agreements, the decision still stands for the proposition that the court took the right of access seriously and will apply a presumption in favor of the right.

    The problem with the decision in the P-G case is not about the evidence presented at trial, or the arguments raised on appeal; rather, it resides in the court's incidental wording, and the potential for misinterpreting the law by assuming that the court opened the door for effectively eviscerating the statutorily created right in the future by simply allowing for the insertion of more explicit wording in partnership agreements so as to deny LPs the right of access to certain information.

    In what should be more appropriately interpreted as obiter dictum (an incidental or passing remark), the court, after rejecting one of the arguments for denying access on the basis that “The general partner's policy (went) beyond reasonably governing access to information; (because) it purports to deny completely a right granted in the partnership agreement.” The court then injected the unnecessary comment that “(i)f the general partner wished to bar access to the names and addresses of partners, it could have done so explicitly in the partnership agreement under 17-305(f)” of the statute. However, nothing in Section 17-305(f) of the statute provides for the specific denial of such information and, it certainly does not provide for the complete denial of access to a basic right created by the General Assembly.

    If the court's comment is taken as authoritative and controlling, then what previously seemed to be a clearly worded substantive right has now been made illusory because it can be easily voided by the mere “stroke of the pen” when writing an LP agreement. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonable to assume that Delaware's General Assembly would agree that it was their intent, after first articulating the right in one provision of the statute, to allow it to be so easily taken away through a series of purportedly reasonable “restrictions” found in another provision of the same statute? This writer does not think the P-G decision stands for such a sweeping interpretation.

    Resolving the apparent conflict

    “Delaware's rules of statutory construction are straightforward. A court must first determine whether or not the statute is ambiguous. If the statute is found to be clear and unambiguous, then the plain meaning of the statutory language controls. The fact that the parties disagree does not create ambiguity. Rather, a statute is ambiguous only if it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations, or if a literal reading of the statute would lead to an unreasonable or absurd result not contemplated by the Legislature. When confronting an ambiguous statute, a court should construe it in a way that will promote its apparent purpose and harmonize (it) with other statutes within the statutory scheme.” See Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware vs. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), S. Ct. of Delaware (May 13, 2011).

    As discussed above, the statute unambiguously created a right of access, subject only to reasonable standards or restrictions. When the issue of whether the right could be completely barred or denied reached the courts, all of the arguments presented for denying access were rejected. Furthermore, the court never reached the issue raised by its own incidental comment because there was no explicit wording barring access to information in the partnership agreement. In other words, the court merely offered a hypothetical that had no actual bearing on the facts and arguments necessary to reach its decision.

    In conclusion, practitioners involved in writing or interpreting partnership agreements need to consider and decide how to deal with the court's incidental remark in the P-G case. If the wording is not viewed as merely an incidental observation that is not legally binding (obiter dictum), then it is difficult to see how one can square the competing authorities because the court's decision doesn't supply the reasoning for such an apparent non sequitur.

    The better course is to embrace the P-G decision as one that stands for protecting and defending the statutory right; not eviscerating it. Reasonable restrictions on access to information between LPs are certainly permissible to protect the confidentiality of information, but when such restrictions effectively deny any and all access by and between LPs, the partnership agreement may very well violate the statutorily created right of access that remains the law in Delaware. Consequently, general partners and/or authors of LP agreements should not assume that LPs can be denied access to information about other LPs by simply drafting more specific wording in the LP agreement. “Reasonable restrictions” on providing access to information by and between LPs is permissible, but not the total denial of all access to such information.

    James C. Brennan is a partner at Capital Management Services Group, providing risk analysis and other advice and professional services to the global hedge fund community. An experienced trial attorney in practice for 30 years, he served with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, as a trial attorney from 1982 through 2006.

    Related Articles
    LP agreements imperil fiduciary oversight
    Recommended for You
    Eli_Lilly_logo_i.jpg
    Federal judge dismisses ERISA complaint against Eli Lilly
    Trader Joes_i.jpg
    Plaintiffs bag ERISA lawsuit against Trader Joe's
    gavel_scales_lawbook_1550-main_i.jpg
    Aegis Media request to dismiss ERISA lawsuit rejected
    The Institutional Investor's Guide to ESG Investing
    Sponsored Content: The Institutional Investor's Guide to ESG Investing

    Reader Poll

    January 25, 2023
    SEE MORE POLLS >
    Sponsored
    White Papers
    Show Me the Income: Discovering plan sponsor and participant preferences for cr…
    Morningstar Indexes' Annual ESG Risk/Return Analysis
    The Future of Infrastructure: Building a Better Tomorrow
    Outlook 2023: Opportunity in a volatile world
    Research for Institutional Money Management
    View More
    Sponsored Content
    Partner Content
    The Industrialization of ESG Investment
    For institutional investors, ETFs can make meeting liquidity needs easier
    Gold: the most effective commodity investment
    2021 Investment Outlook | Investing Beyond the Pandemic: A Reset for Portfolios
    Ten ways retirement plan professionals add value to plan sponsors
    Gold: an efficient hedge
    View More
    E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS

    Sign up and get the best of News delivered straight to your email inbox, free of charge. Choose your news – we will deliver.

    Subscribe Today
    December 12, 2022 page one

    Get access to the news, research and analysis of events affecting the retirement and institutional money management businesses from a worldwide network of reporters and editors.

    Subscribe
    Connect With Us
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

    Our Mission

    To consistently deliver news, research and analysis to the executives who manage the flow of funds in the institutional investment market.

    About Us

    Main Office
    685 Third Avenue
    Tenth Floor
    New York, NY 10017-4036

    Chicago Office
    130 E. Randolph St.
    Suite 3200
    Chicago, IL 60601

    Contact Us

    Careers at Crain

    About Pensions & Investments

     

    Advertising
    • Media Kit
    • P&I Content Solutions
    • P&I Careers | Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    Resources
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • FAQ
    • P&I Research Center
    • Site map
    • Staff Directory
    Legal
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Request
    Pensions & Investments
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Topics
      • Alternatives
      • Consultants
      • Coronavirus
      • Courts
      • Defined Contribution
      • ESG
      • ETFs
      • Face to Face
      • Hedge Funds
      • Industry Voices
      • Investing
      • Money Management
      • Opinion
      • Partner Content
      • Pension Funds
      • Private Equity
      • Real Estate
      • Russia-Ukraine War
      • SECURE 2.0
      • Special Reports
      • White Papers
    • Rankings & Awards
      • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
      • Top-Performing Managers
      • Largest Money Managers
      • DC Money Managers
      • DC Record Keepers
      • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
      • World's Largest Retirement Funds
      • Best Places to Work in Money Management
      • Excellence & Innovation Awards
      • WPS Innovation Awards
      • Eddy Awards
    • ETFs
      • Latest ETF News
      • Fund Screener
      • Education Center
      • Equities
      • Fixed Income
      • Commodities
      • Actively Managed
      • Alternatives
      • ESG Rated
    • ESG
      • Latest ESG News
      • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
      • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
      • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
      • Impact Investing
      • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
      • ESG Rated ETFs
    • Defined Contribution
      • Latest DC News
      • DC Money Manager Rankings
      • DC Record Keeper Rankings
      • Innovations in DC
      • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
      • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
      • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
    • Searches & Hires
      • Latest Searches & Hires News
      • Searches & Hires Database
      • RFPs
    • Performance Data
      • P&I Research Center
      • Earnings Tracker
      • Endowment Returns Tracker
      • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
      • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
      • Pension Risk Transfer Database
      • Future of Investments Research Series
      • Charts & Infographics
      • Polls
    • Careers
    • Events
      • View All Conferences
      • View All Webinars
      • 2023 Defined Contribution East
      • 2023 ESG Investing