Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

LEGACYHUB HOSPITALITY FUND I INC

Sponsored by LegacyHub Capital·

Unknown· Inc · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
2 data notes
Unusual structureUnscored: absolute lp take
Run the numbers
Composite
19.3
median 17 +2
Pref Return
LP Take (Base)
at 1.75× exit
GP Commit
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$3K
ticket size
Offering Size
$50M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $815K · Fees $60K · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KGPFFees to Manager$60,000 · 6.9% of grossLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 36.0%Limited Partners · $315KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes· viewing as Class A Voting Common Stock

How LEGACYHUB HOSPITALITY FUND I INC divides the cap table

The cascade above is filtered to Class A Voting Common Stock. Reset to blended view.

Deal diligence14 findings · worst high

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.

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 — Proceeds to the Company at Minimum Offering

High

The cover fee table states 'Proceeds to the Company' of only $100,000.00 against a $1,000,000.00 Minimum Dollar Amount with zero commissions, an internally impossible figure that also contradicts the Use of Proceeds table (page 33) showing $950,000 net for the same $1,000,000 minimum.

Minimum Dollar Amount $ 1,000,000.00 (2) $ - $ 100,000.00
PPM p.285% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — NAV re-pricing frequency (semi-annual vs. quarterly)

Medium

The pricing description says the per-share price will be adjusted 'semi-annually' yet then lists four re-pricing dates (January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st), which is a quarterly schedule and contradicts the 'every fiscal quarter' language used on the cover and in the Q&A.

Our Manager has initially determinate to adjust the per-share purchase price in this offering semi-annually, as of January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st of each year
PPM p.3480% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Redemption request lead time (60 days vs. 30 days)

Medium

The Summary of Redemption Plan table requires submitting an Introductory-Period redemption request 'At least 60 days before the effective redemption date' and a 'minimum 60 day waiting period', contradicting the body text that sets the lead time at thirty (30) days.

At least 60 days before the effective redemption date (but in no event 90 or more days after first acquiring the shares)
PPM p.4078% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Subscription Agreement exhibit label

Low

The subscription agreement is pointed to under three different labels across the document - 'Appendix B' (pages 13 and 28), 'Exhibit III' (this page), and item '4.1 Subscription Agreement' in the Part III exhibit index - so no single pointer reliably resolves.

A specimen copy of the subscription agreement, including instructions for completing it, is included in this offering circular as Exhibit III.
PPM p.4682% confidence

Defined-term defect — Manager vs. Investment Manager

Low

LegacyHub Partners, LLC is defined as 'the Manager' throughout the body, but the audited financial-statement notes redefine the same entity as 'the Investment Manager', using the new term for fee and economic-dependency disclosures without reconciling it to the body's defined term.

Substantially all the Company’s business will be externally managed by LegacyHub Partners, LLC (the 'Investment Manager'), a Texas limited liability company.
PPM p.4270% confidence

Document-quality defect — Multifamily / residential asset-class language

Low

In a fund whose entire strategy is hospitality (hotel) real estate, the Use of Proceeds boilerplate references investing 'for the purchase of Multifamily real estate', an uncorrected wrong-asset-class template leftover (the same section also markets 'our residential spaces').

We may not be able to promptly invest the net proceeds of this offering in property for the purchase of Multifamily real estate and other select real estate-related assets
PPM p.3278% 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 distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Structure). 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 answered0 partial8 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?Gap
  • 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 $50,000,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $2,500.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 6.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Ongoing, operational stage
2.0% per annum on net offering proceeds (AUM) paid quarterly; waived for first 4 quarters after SEC qualification
2.00%
Platform Administration Fee
Ongoing, operational stage
3%-4% per annum on gross revenue from all assets owned in the offering, paid quarterly
0.00%
Ongoing, per asset
Up to 4% annualized on gross revenue from each hospitality asset, paid monthly
4.00%
Organization and Offering Cost Reimbursement
After minimum offering of $1,000,000 is raised
Reimbursement of offering expenses paid by Sponsor/Manager; capped at 0.50% of aggregate gross offering proceeds per monthly installment; estimated at $1,600,000 at full subscription
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