Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
Auor Capital Fund V LLC
Auor Capital · Unknown · Vintage 2018
51
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
—
LP take (absolute)
15
Pref quality
83
Fee drag
45
GP alignment
60
Timing risk
Key economics
- Preferred return
- —
- Hurdle rate
- —
- LP / GP split
- —
- GP catch-up
- —
- GP clawback
- —
- GP commitment
- —
Diligence findings (18 · 6 high/critical)
- criticalNumeric inconsistency — Tier 1 vs Tier 2 offering classificationThe cover page and body text repeatedly state this is a 'Tier 1' offering under Regulation A, but the Offering summary table states it is a 'Tier 2' offering — a material regulatory classification discrepancy.
- highDDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Governance). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- highDDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- highDDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- highDDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- highUnfilled placeholder text — asdfNonsense placeholder text 'asdf' appears in the body of the document between the Summary section and Summary Risk Factors, indicating the document was shipped unfinished.
- mediumDDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Governance). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- mediumDDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- mediumDDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.
- mediumDefined-term defect — the TrustIn the compliance risk factor, the document refers to 'the Trust' (as if this were a trust vehicle) when this entity is actually an LLC; 'the Trust' is never defined and is an apparent wrong-term substitution from a prior template.
- mediumDisposition Fee (2%) is taken above the waterfallA performance- or transaction-linked fee paid above the waterfall reaches the GP before the LP's distribution priorities run, eroding the pool the pref + return-of-capital draw from. Routine asset-management fees above the line are normal; a disposition/promote-flavored fee there is a leak worth pricing.
- mediumDocument-quality defect — Foxtail Hollow interim financials described as Auor Capital Fund V LLC financialsUnder the Foxtail Hollow LLC interim financial statements heading, the introductory paragraph mistakenly states 'The unaudited financial statements of Auor Capital Fund V LLC as of April 30, 2024' when it should be describing Foxtail Hollow LLC financials for the period ending March 31, 2024.
- mediumNumeric inconsistency — Authorized Class B Units: 488 vs 408.75The financial statement notes state 'The Company has authorized 1 Class A Unit and 488 Class B Units' but the offering circular body says 'We are offering up to 408.75 Class B Units' — the authorized unit count does not match the offering amount.
- mediumNumeric inconsistency — Company ownership interest: 25.9246% vs 25.9264%The Company's membership interest percentage in OpCo is stated as '25.9246%' in multiple places (Summary, Distribution Policy) but as '25.9264%' in the Contribution Agreement section — the two figures conflict.
- mediumUnfilled placeholder text — [Investors TBD]The ownership table contains an unfilled placeholder '[Investors TBD]' for the Class B unit holders, indicating the document was not finalized before being shipped to investors.
- lowSpelling / typo — FOXTAIL HALLOW LLCThe financial statements section header misspells the entity name as 'FOXTAIL HALLOW LLC' instead of 'FOXTAIL HOLLOW LLC.'
- lowSpelling / typo — OpCo MangerThe OpCo Manager is referred to twice as 'OpCo Manger' (missing the 'a') in the Summary section, a clear misspelling of a material defined term.
- infoSpelling / typo — organized as limited liability companiesThe Management section states 'the Company is organized as limited liability companies' (plural) instead of 'a limited liability company,' a broken grammatical sentence in substantive disclosure.
DDQ readiness — 38% covered
5 answered · 1 partial · 7 gaps of 13 standard questions.