No-Fault Divorce Clause in Private Equity Fund LPAs

A no-fault divorce clause is a provision in a private equity fund’s limited partnership agreement (LPA) that allows a supermajority of limited partners to remove the general partner (GP) without proving wrongdoing or breach. Unlike cause-based removal, which requires evidence of fraud or gross negligence, a no-fault divorce is purely at the LPs’ discretion—triggered by performance concerns, strategic disagreements, or simply a desire for new management. The vote threshold typically ranges from 66% to 75% of LP capital commitments.

The Private Equity GP–LP Power Dynamic

In a typical private equity fund, the GP (the investment manager) controls day-to-day decisions—which companies to buy, when to sell, how to allocate capital—while LPs (the investors) provide capital and vote on major items like fund dissolution or GP replacement.

Early PE fund agreements gave GPs almost total control. LPs could exit by redemption, but removing an underperforming or misconducting GP was nearly impossible. A GP had to be caught in outright fraud to lose its job.

The no-fault divorce clause shifted this balance. It lets LPs say, “We hired you to manage this fund. If we collectively lose confidence in your ability or strategy, we can replace you—period.” No need to prove breach or misconduct; votes count, and the GP is out.

How the Mechanics Work

Trigger: A coalition of LPs (often led by large institutional investors) proposes a motion to remove the GP. The proposal goes to all LPs for a vote.

Vote threshold: Usually 66% or 75% of committed capital. (A few newer funds use 60% or 80%, but two-thirds is most common.) Each LP’s voting power is proportional to their capital commitment, not the number of LPs.

Example: A $500 million fund has 50 LPs. Three institutions own 70% of the capital. Those three can vote out the GP unilaterally if the threshold is 66% or lower. If the threshold is 80%, they need backing from other LPs to reach that bar.

Timing: Most LPAs specify a waiting period—often 30–90 days—between the motion and the vote, to give GPs time to respond and LPs to deliberate. Once the threshold is reached, the GP is formally removed and typically has 30–60 days to transition.

Consequences for the GP:

• Immediate cessation of management fees (a major loss of revenue).
• Forfeiture or clawback of carried interest on unrealized investments and sometimes realized ones (pro-rated based on when the removal occurs).
• Reputational damage; future fundraising becomes harder.

No-Fault vs. Cause-Based Removal

Cause-based removal is the traditional mechanism. The LPA lists grounds—fraud, gross negligence, material breach, self-dealing—and requires the LP committee to prove the GP violated those terms. It’s a high bar, often requiring legal action. A GP can fight it in court.

No-fault removal is simpler: LPs vote, threshold is met, GP is out. No legal battle, no need for evidence. The trade-off is that LPs must accept the contractual penalties (loss of fees and carried interest) and bear the costs of transition.

In practice, no-fault clauses are rarely used in successful funds (GPs are doing their job, so LPs have no reason to vote them out). They matter most when a GP is chronically underperforming or when LPs and GP diverge on strategy—e.g., LPs want to shift to lower-middle-market deals, but the GP insists on mega-cap takeouts.

Why LPs Negotiate for This Protection

Alignment of interests: LPs want to ensure the GP stays motivated and responsive. A no-fault clause signals that incompetence or misalignment is not tolerated.

Institutional pressure: Large pension funds, endowments, and family offices often demand no-fault removal in fund documents. It’s become a market expectation in institutional PE.

Long fund lives: PE funds often run for 10–12 years, and circumstances change. A GP that was excellent in 2010 might be outdated in 2020. No-fault removal gives LPs a way to adapt without proving wrongdoing.

Limitations and Trade-Offs

High cost to execute: Removing a GP mid-fund is disruptive. The replacement GP must learn the portfolio, renegotiate third-party vendor contracts, and possibly liquidate some holdings sooner than planned. These transition costs can reduce LP returns.

Carried interest claw-back is incomplete: While removing a GP typically forfeits or claws back its carried interest, the terms vary. Some funds allow the old GP to keep carried interest on fully realized deals (already sold), creating a gray zone on partially liquidated portfolio companies.

Threshold must be achievable: If the threshold is set too high (90%), the no-fault clause becomes toothless. If too low (50%), the GP is constantly threatened. The 66–75% sweet spot balances LP protection with GP stability.

Stigma and talent retention: A GP under threat of removal may have trouble hiring and retaining operating partners and deal scouts. Key talent may leave preemptively if they sense instability.

When No-Fault Removal Has Been Invoked

Real-world examples are uncommon because most LPs and GPs work it out privately before a vote becomes necessary. However, several high-profile cases have occurred:

• 2008 financial crisis: Some LPs considered removing GPs whose portfolios cratered, but most negotiated GP fee reductions instead of outright removal.
• Underperforming vintage years: A few mega-funds have faced LP pressure to replace managers after returns lagged public markets for 5+ years.
• Strategic misalignment: Some LPs have coordinated removal when a GP pivoted to a strategy the LPs no longer supported.

Most situations are resolved through negotiation—the threat of removal motivates GPs to improve or step down gracefully.

The Modern LPA: Standard Expectations

In today’s PE fundraising environment, limited partners expect a no-fault divorce clause as a baseline protection. GPs that refuse it signal that they’re unwilling to be held accountable, and institutional LPs often walk away from the fund as a result.

Newer funds have also added refinements:

• Interim GP: If no permanent successor is named, an interim manager takes over temporarily.
• Fee reduction: Some LPAs let LPs vote to cut management fees as an alternative to full removal.
• Supermajority for reinstatement: A few funds allow a GP to propose reinstatement after a period (rare and contentious).

The no-fault clause reflects the modern understanding that a long partnership requires exit valves. When they’re used, it’s usually because the partnership has already broken down.

See also