Philadelphia Powderkegs, Inc.

Key economics

Preferred return

—

Hurdle rate

—

LP / GP split

—

GP catch-up

—

GP clawback

—

GP commitment

—

Diligence findings (13 · 4 high/critical)

• high
  DDQ 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.
• high
  DDQ 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.
• high
  DDQ 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.
• high
  DDQ 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.
• medium
  DDQ 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.
• medium
  DDQ 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.
• medium
  DDQ gap: What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?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.
• medium
  DDQ 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.
• medium
  Numeric inconsistency — $3,2000,000The Commitment for Future Advances loan amount is consistently stated as $3,200,000 throughout the document, but in the Risk Factors on this page it is mistyped as '$3,2000,000' (an extra zero), a garbled money figure.
• low
  Defined-term defect — Membership Unit LoanIn the Interest of Management section the document refers to 'interest on the Membership Unit Loan', but that term is never defined; every parallel passage elsewhere (pages 6, 11, 33) refers to interest on the 'Share Acquisition Loan' — an undefined wrong-term substitution.
• low
  Document-quality defect — Initial twelve (12) teams listThe list of CRL's 'initial twelve (12) teams' names Philadelphia Powderkegs, Inc. twice (as the 2nd and 8th bullets), so only 11 distinct entities (10 named teams plus one 'To be determined by contest') are actually listed for the stated 12 teams.
• low
  Unfilled placeholder text — www.__________The Plan of Distribution describes the offering landing-page URL with an unfilled blank placeholder ('www.__________') that was never completed before the document was shipped to investors.
• info
  Spelling / typo — relayA Risk Factors note in the financial statements uses 'relay' where 'rely' is meant, breaking the sentence ('the National Football League ... on whose players we relay for our fantasy league').

DDQ readiness — 38% covered

5 answered · 0 partial · 8 gaps of 13 standard questions.