Default
Score model

Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

Auor Capital Fund V LLC

Sponsored by Auor Capital·

Unknown· LLC · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
2 data notes
Unusual structureUnscored: absolute lp take
Run the numbers
Composite
50.6
median 35 +15
Pref Return
LP Take (Base)
median 42.6% · Other / Specialty
GP Commit
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$10K
ticket size
Offering Size
$4M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $858K · Fees $18K · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KGPFFees to Manager$17,500 · 2.0% of grossLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 40.9%Limited Partners · $358KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes· viewing as Class B Units

How Auor Capital Fund V LLC divides the cap table

The cascade above is filtered to Class B Units. Reset to blended view.

Deal diligence18 findings · worst critical

Automated checks across the fund's extracted PPM. Every finding is shown with the evidence it's based on — proven numbers or a verbatim quote and page.

Waterfall structure

Structural checks run against Auor Capital Fund V LLC's extracted waterfall. Each is a deterministic test — the numbers shown are proven from the PPM, not estimated.

Disposition Fee (2%) is taken above the waterfall

Medium

A 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.

The OpCo Manger is entitled to a disposition fee equal to two percent (2%) of the net proceeds provided the sale proceeds result in at least a two-times multiple on total Project equity (including investments, contributed fees, and other equity sources).
PPM p.685% confidence

Document quality

Drafting defects found in the PPM prose — numeric inconsistencies, broken cross-references, unfilled placeholders, and defined-term problems. Each is shown with the offending quote and its page.

Numeric inconsistency — Tier 1 vs Tier 2 offering classification

Critical

The 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.

TIER 1 OFFERING AUOR CAPITAL FUND V LLC ... This offering is intended to qualify as a 'Tier 1' offering pursuant to Regulation A promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 ... [vs] This offering is being made on a 'best efforts' basis and is intended to qualify as a 'Tier 2' offering pursuant to Regulation A promulgated under the Securities Act.
PPM p.199% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — asdf

High

Nonsense placeholder text 'asdf' appears in the body of the document between the Summary section and Summary Risk Factors, indicating the document was shipped unfinished.

asdf Summary Risk Factors
PPM p.999% confidence

Defined-term defect — the Trust

Medium

In 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.

If the Property does not comply with these requirements, the Trust may incur governmental fines or private damage awards.
PPM p.1595% confidence

Document-quality defect — Foxtail Hollow interim financials described as Auor Capital Fund V LLC financials

Medium

Under 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.

Interim Financial Statements for the Period January 1, 2024 through March 31, 2024. The unaudited financial statements of Auor Capital Fund V LLC as of April 30, 2024, have also been included in this offering circular, which are comprised of the balance sheet as of March 31, 2024
PPM p.5893% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Authorized Class B Units: 488 vs 408.75

Medium

The 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.

We are offering up to 408.75 Class B Units, for an aggregate amount of $4,087,500 ... [vs Notes to Financial Statements] The Company has authorized 1 Class A Unit and 488 Class B Units of Membership Interest.
PPM p.3296% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Company ownership interest: 25.9246% vs 25.9264%

Medium

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.

constituting 25.9246% of the issued and outstanding membership interest in and to OpCo ... [vs Contribution Agreement section] The Company acquired the Interest, constituting 25.9264% of the issued and outstanding membership interest
PPM p.797% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — [Investors TBD]

Medium

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.

[Investors TBD] Class B N/A [ ] 0 %
PPM p.3198% confidence

Spelling / typo — FOXTAIL HALLOW LLC

Low

The financial statements section header misspells the entity name as 'FOXTAIL HALLOW LLC' instead of 'FOXTAIL HOLLOW LLC.'

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FOXTAIL HALLOW LLC
PPM p.5899% confidence

Spelling / typo — OpCo Manger

Low

The OpCo Manager is referred to twice as 'OpCo Manger' (missing the 'a') in the Summary section, a clear misspelling of a material defined term.

of which $1,000,000 has been contributed by the Manger to OpCo as equity in the Project. The OpCo Manger is entitled to a disposition fee equal to two percent (2%) of the net proceeds
PPM p.699% confidence

Spelling / typo — organized as limited liability companies

Info

The 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.

Because the Company is organized as limited liability companies, and does not have a 'board of directors.' The Manager perform the function of a board of directors for the Company.
PPM p.2997% confidence

Diligence gaps

Questions a standard diligence questionnaire would ask that the PPM leaves unanswered.

DDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ readiness

How much of a standard institutional due-diligence questionnaire this fund's offering documents answer out of the box. Gaps are questions an allocator will ask directly.

38%
Coverage
5 answered1 partial7 gaps13 questions
Economics
  • What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?Gap
  • What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?Gap
  • Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?Gap
  • Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?Gap
  • What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?Gap
Structure
  • What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?1 distribution tier(s) extracted; structure type not classified.Partial
  • What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2018.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $4,087,500.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $10,000.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?4 fee line item(s) extracted from the offering documents.Answered
Governance
  • Does the fund engage an independent auditor?Gap
  • Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?Gap

Fee scheduletaken before LP distributions

Total load 2.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Development Fee
Project development
Flat $1,400,000; of which $1,000,000 was contributed by the Manager to OpCo as equity in the Project
0.00%
Sale of Project
2% of net proceeds of sale, conditioned on sale proceeds resulting in at least a 2x multiple on total Project equity (including investments, contributed fees, and other equity sources)
2.00%
Platform Fee
Ongoing; deducted from offering proceeds
Flat $750 per month payable to Invest Next for investor management platform services
0.00%
Offering Expenses (Legal, Marketing, Other)
Offering
Estimated total offering expenses of approximately $337,500, including legal fees, Invest Next Platform fees, and marketing/promotional fees
0.00%

Service providers3 gaps

Legal Counsel
Gap
Not disclosed
No independent counsel named for investors. Common in small syndications where Manager and Fund share counsel — reduces independence. Verify during diligence.
Auditor
Gap
Not disclosed
Audit intent not stated in PPM. Ask the sponsor: will the fund be audited, by whom, and on what frequency?
Fund Administrator
Gap
Not disclosed
No third-party fund administrator referenced. Manager likely handles admin internally — common for <$10M raises but reduces independence.
Placement Agent
OK
No placement agent engaged
No placement agent engaged. Direct placement by Manager — no placement fees eat your invested capital.

Community threads0 active

What allocators are saying. Diligence notes, open questions, attached scenarios.

No threads yet. Be the first →

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be the first allocator to leave a take.

Funds you might also likesame Unknown