Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 JANUARY 2025

To Stake Or Not To Stake: GP Staking vs. Alternative Liquidity Solutions

Torys
Torys
Contributor
Torys

Torys

Torys LLP is an international business law firm that works with clients who expect the best advice...

View firm profile
Explore more from Torys

Historically, a GP's source of liquidity was self-generated. Whether through management fees or house carry, sources of cash for a sponsor came from within the sponsor's structure.

CanadaCorporate/Commercial Law

Historically, a GP's source of liquidity was self-generated. Whether through management fees or house carry, sources of cash for a sponsor came from within the sponsor's structure. This, not surprisingly, places inherent limitations on the manager's ability to grow the business, facilitate succession planning and achieve other strategic objectives.

Enter GP staking. A now well-established solution to this liquidity challenge, it is estimated that tens of billions of dollars have been raised by GP staking funds for the purpose of making minority investments in private equity sponsors. While we are also seeing strategic control transactions with some regularity in the market (e.g., one asset manager acquiring control of another), this article will focus on sponsors selling minority investments to GP staking funds, whose investment strategies are to acquire interests in GPs for the purpose of providing liquidity to the GP. There are numerous considerations to take

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from