Can LPs sue over conflicts of interest between funds at the same firm?

By Doca Gomes, licensed insurance broker · Published November 5, 2026

Yes. Limited partners (LPs), the investors in a fund, can bring claims over conflicts of interest between funds at the same firm. A claim may allege that the manager favored another fund when allocating a deal, setting a price or sharing costs, or failed to disclose the conflict. Whether it succeeds depends on the fund documents, the facts and applicable law. An investment loss alone does not establish wrongdoing.

Cilantro is an insurance broker for investment firms. Directors and officers liability (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) insurance may help pay to defend these claims, subject to the policy’s terms. Defense coverage does not guarantee coverage for repayment of fees, restitution or disgorgement, which can require returning money. This page explains the conflicts, the claims and what to check before a deal.

Request a call

Can Fund II invest in a company Fund I already owns?

Often, yes, if the fund documents allow it and the manager addresses the conflicts. A later investment can benefit both funds, but its price, dilution and repayment priority can affect their investors differently. The manager should document the allocation and valuation, disclose material conflicts, and obtain any consent required by the fund documents and applicable law.

Where conflicts of interest between funds come from

A firm’s funds may have different investors, investment terms and timelines. A deal involving two funds can benefit both, but the manager’s choices can also favor one group of investors over another. Four situations illustrate the risk:

Which fund gets the deal. An early-stage fund and a later opportunity fund both want the same company, or a new fund wants a deal the older fund’s investors expected to see. The usual safeguard is a written allocation policy that is followed and can be shown.
A later fund follows on into an earlier fund’s company. The new round can affect the value of the old fund’s holding, and the new fund may receive different pricing or a right to be repaid first. In 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled with JH Partners over inadequately disclosed conflicts involving overlapping fund investments and loans by the manager and its principals that ranked ahead of fund equity. The manager neither admitted nor denied the findings.
Costs and loans shared between funds’ companies. In 2014 the SEC settled with a manager that ran two portfolio companies owned by two different funds as one business and split the shared costs in a way that favored the later fund. The manager paid about $2.3 million in disgorgement, interest and penalty, without admitting or denying the findings.
Moving an asset from an old fund into a new vehicle. A continuation fund puts the manager on both sides of a sale and may reset carried interest, the manager’s share of investment profits. In a late-2025 Delaware challenge, an investor alleged that the limited partner advisory committee (LPAC), which reviews conflicts for investors, had been given a week between notice and vote. The manager deferred closing to permit arbitration, and the transaction closed the following spring. No court ruled on the merits.

Who brings the claim: the investors, and the regulator

Investors may bring claims under the fund’s documents and applicable duties of loyalty and disclosure. A limited partnership agreement can shape or limit those duties where the law permits. Claims may concern a breach of the agreement, a failure to disclose, or a vote taken on incomplete information. The Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA), an industry association representing fund investors, recommends caps on overlapping fund investments in its Principles 3.0 and identifies cross-fund investments as conflicts for LPAC review. LPAC consent can help address a conflict, but its effect depends on the limited partnership agreement, adequate disclosure and applicable law. It does not automatically establish that the price is fair or prevent a claim.

The SEC examines whether advisers meet their fiduciary duties under the Investment Advisers Act. Investor sophistication does not excuse inadequate disclosure. Its 2019 interpretation recognizes that an institutional client’s experience and resources can affect the detail and terminology needed, while still requiring clear disclosure sufficient for informed consent. The SEC’s fiscal year 2027 examination priorities address economic conflicts, valuation and fee and expense calculations, including private-fund disclosures about investments and allocations. A June 2026 risk alert also discusses undisclosed or inadequately disclosed economic conflicts. The Fifth Circuit vacated the 2023 private fund adviser rules, including the independent fairness or valuation opinion requirement for manager-led secondaries, in June 2024. Fund documents and applicable law still matter.

What a fund’s insurance does with these claims

A fund losing money isn’t, on its own, a claim. The disputes insurance is written for are about the gap between what the documents said and what the firm did: investing outside the stated guidelines, a valuation an investor disputes, or a conflict that wasn’t disclosed. That is the territory of the firm’s E&O, the part of a fund’s program that covers claims about the investment work itself. An allegation that the firm’s leaders failed to oversee it points to D&O, which covers decisions about running the firm and its funds. One dispute can involve both, which is why investment firms usually buy them together, often on one contract called general partners liability (GPL). GPL is the name of the package, not an extra coverage, and the two parts may share one limit.

A regulator’s inquiry is covered sometimes, and not at every stage. A formal investigation is more likely to be covered than a routine exam or an informal request, and the policy decides when an inquiry counts as a claim. Legal fees usually reduce the same limit that pays settlements. A retention is the amount the insured must pay before the insurer pays covered costs, and exclusions still apply, especially for earlier matters and misconduct. These policies are generally claims-made: coverage depends on when a claim is first made and whether it is reported within the policy’s deadlines. Before changing insurers, review the policy’s notice requirements for existing claims and known circumstances with your broker.

Which fund is suing matters. A policy covers only the entities and people that qualify as insureds under its definitions and endorsements, the amendments to its terms. Before a cross-fund deal, ask three questions: how the policy treats claims brought by the fund’s own investors, what lower limit may apply to a regulatory matter, and whether every relevant fund, entity and vehicle qualifies as an insured. Each need not necessarily be named individually. LPAC consent does not determine coverage. Even if defense costs are covered, repayment of fees, restitution or disgorgement may fall outside covered loss or be excluded or uninsurable under applicable law.

Before a cross-fund deal: what to have in writing

These examples show why disclosure, consent and a documented decision process matter. Before the deal, have these records ready:

An allocation policy that says which fund gets what, and a record showing the deal followed it
Any cap on overlapping investments in the fund documents, and whether this deal stays under it
The disclosure to the LPAC, sent with enough time and information for a real vote, and any other required consents
Who set the price when one fund bought from or alongside another, and on what basis
Your policy’s answers to the three questions above, from your broker, before the deal closes

Where to start

Send us your fund documents, your entity chart and your current policies. We’ll tell you what you have, what’s missing, and what it would take to fix, before the next deal between your funds rather than after it.

Common questions

Does the limited partner advisory committee’s approval stop an investor from suing?

Not automatically. The effect of consent depends on the limited partnership agreement, adequate disclosure and applicable law. Approval does not itself establish that the price is fair, and investors may challenge a process based on incomplete information. The late-2025 Delaware challenge illustrates that risk; the later transaction closing does not establish a ruling on the merits.

Does it matter that all our investors are sophisticated?

It can affect how disclosure is presented, but it does not remove the obligation to disclose material conflicts. The SEC’s 2019 interpretation recognizes that institutional clients may need different detail or terminology from retail clients. Disclosure still needs to be clear and sufficiently detailed to support informed consent.

Does our fund’s insurance cover a lawsuit from our own investors?

It depends on the policy’s terms, exclusions and definitions of who is insured. Errors and omissions (E&O) insurance may respond to claims about investment work, and directors and officers liability (D&O) insurance to claims about management decisions. Coverage for defense costs does not guarantee coverage for fee repayment, restitution or disgorgement. We read that wording before you rely on it.

Is a continuation fund a conflict of interest?

It creates conflicts because the manager is on both sides of a sale and may receive new economic incentives. The Institutional Limited Partners Association’s 2026 continuation-vehicle guidance replaces its 2023 guidance and emphasizes managing conflicts transparently, explaining the commercial rationale, supporting the price and enabling informed investor decisions. LPAC review is part of the process; responsibility for managing conflicts remains with the manager.

Talk to us about your insurance

Tell us about your business, what you’re trying to decide, and any deadline. We’ll follow up to set up a call. You don’t need to upload anything now.