Red Mountain Ventures Limited Partnership

Key economics

Preferred return

—

Hurdle rate

—

LP / GP split

—

GP catch-up

—

GP clawback

—

GP commitment

—

Diligence findings (15 · 5 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.
• high
  Numeric inconsistency — Residual Distribution example - Class D allocation denominatorIn the Residual Distribution worked example the Class A/B/C/C2 allocations all divide by the stated Aggregate Participation Total of CDN$63,104,977, but the Class D allocation divides by a different figure (CDN$62,604,977), so the same total is stated two ways and the percentages cannot all be correct.
• 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 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 — Fiscal 2017 depreciation expenseFiscal 2017 depreciation expense is stated as $635,882 in one paragraph and $653,882 in the immediately following paragraph on the same page; the audited Statement of Operations confirms $653,882, so the $635,882 figure is a transposition error.
• low
  Defined-term defect — Offering MemorandumThe document is captioned and consistently referred to as an 'Offering Circular', but the SIDIT discussion refers to 'the date of this Offering Memorandum', an inconsistent term for the same document.
• low
  Numeric inconsistency — Jeff Busby - director tenure start dateThe directors table lists Jeff Busby's term of office as a director beginning 'June 2004', but his bio on the following page states he has served as a director 'since 2008'; the two start dates for the same fact conflict.
• low
  Unfilled placeholder text — _____ (cover-page offering circular date)The cover page carries an unfilled blank where the offering-circular date should appear.
• low
  Unfilled placeholder text — _____ (estimated sale commencement date)The estimated date on which the sale of securities will commence is left as an unfilled blank line.
• info
  Spelling / typo — LIMTEDThe fund's own name is misspelled 'LIMTED PARTNERSHIP' (missing the 'I' in LIMITED) in the financial-statements cover heading.
• info
  Spelling / typo — RED MOUNTANThe fund's own name is misspelled 'RED MOUNTAN VENTURES' (missing the 'I' in MOUNTAIN) in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows heading.

DDQ readiness — 38% covered

5 answered · 1 partial · 7 gaps of 13 standard questions.