Private Equity Fund Risk Resolution and Manager Continuity: A Practical Legal Framework

A practice observation on PRC law. General information only; not legal advice on any specific matter.

---

Part I: Scope and Premises

1. The Situation This Framework Addresses

In the current market, it is common for an RMB private equity fund manager registered with the Asset Management Association of China (AMAC) to find that several portfolio companies under one or more managed funds have entered debt crises, deteriorating operations, or judicial procedures — litigation, enforcement, or bankruptcy reorganization (Distressed Projects). Fund exit cycles extend well beyond contractual expectations, and part of the underlying assets face impairment or become unrecoverable.

Where a manager's attention in this situation stays concentrated on the progress of individual litigation and enforcement files, the focus carries a structural bias:

• Individual litigation answers only whether a single asset can be recovered;
• The two questions operating at a higher level, and on tighter time windows, are whether the fund can exit in an orderly manner, and whether the manager can continue to operate.

2. Core Proposition

A fund may fail; a manager cannot lose credibility. A manager's statutory duty is not to guarantee investment returns, but to be able to prove that it raised, invested, managed, and exited in accordance with law.

Over a full adjustment cycle, what matters to a manager is no longer whether every project exits successfully, but whether historical risk is cleared in an orderly way while the manager's operating capability, credit, licence, and fundraising capacity survive into the next capital cycle.

The practical implication is a shift of the work focus from a project-recovery orientation to a dual-track approach: fund risk clearing plus manager capability preservation.

3. Coverage

1. The boundaries of a manager's fiduciary duties under PRC law and the scenarios that trigger liability;
2. Asset value layering and exit path selection for distressed portfolio projects;
3. Orderly exit arrangements at the fund level — extension, disposal, liquidation, distribution, disclosure;
4. Four-dimensional assessment of manager liability risk (investor accountability, regulatory, litigation, reputation);
5. Construction of a legal firewall between manager and fund;
6. Stop-loss and legal finality mechanisms for distressed assets;
7. Preservation of the manager's continuous operating capability.

4. Premises

The analysis below assumes that:

1. Fund contracts, partnership agreements, and investment agreements were validly executed and sealed, and signatories held corresponding authority;
2. Fund filing with AMAC was completed and manager registration remains valid, with no abnormal operating status;
3. No undisclosed nominee shareholding, ming gu shi zhai (equity in form, debt in substance), difference-filling agreement, repurchase commitment, or guaranteed principal/return arrangement exists at the fund or manager level.

The third premise is decisive. Where difference-filling letters, repurchase commitment letters, side letters ("drawer agreements"), or oral commitments to particular investors do exist, the basis of manager liability shifts from fault-based liability to contractual liability, and every conclusion on liability isolation must be re-derived from the beginning. In practice, written confirmation or denial of this fact is the first item of any risk-clearing exercise.

---

Part II: Summary of the Framework

1. Characterising What Happened

Where portfolio companies successively enter debt crises or judicial procedures, the dominant causes are frequently cyclical — a slower domestic IPO pace, reconstruction of primary-market valuation systems, narrowing exit channels, and a deteriorating operating environment for portfolio companies — rather than illegality or irregularity in the manager's investment decision process. That distinction is the foundation for everything that follows, and it must be fixed evidentially rather than asserted rhetorically.

2. The Principal Risk Is Usually Not the Litigation

No.	Risk Category	Substance of Risk
1	Existing asset risk	Asset values keep declining while disposal windows close; continued litigation and preservation costs may exceed expected recovery.
2	Investor trust risk	Discontinuous disclosure moves investors from "accepting losses" to "questioning diligence" — the trigger point for most disputes.
3	Manager liability risk	Where decision records are incomplete, the burden of proof effectively shifts onto the manager.
4	Continuity and licence risk	Shrinking AUM, absence of new filings, and insufficient full-time personnel may trigger "abnormal operation" status or deregistration.
5	Fundraising capability risk	Failure to settle historical projects in an orderly way is a substantive obstacle to raising the next fund.

3. Three Parallel Work Lines

Within a twelve-month cycle, three lines can run simultaneously:

• Clearing line — complete asset layering across the distressed portfolio; establish legal finality and stop-loss decisions for assets with no recovery space, and stop ineffective spending.
• Isolation line — reconstruct investment decision archives and continuous disclosure, so as to sever, at the evidentiary level, "failure of fund investments" from "professional negligence of the manager."
• Continuity line — use licence maintenance, team retention, and special-asset capability building to preserve eligibility to enter the next cycle.

4. Recommended Actions, by Priority

Priority	Item	Comment
Non-negotiable	① Written confirmation whether any guaranteed principal/return or difference-filling arrangement exists; ② comprehensive collection and sealing of originals for IC meetings, due diligence, resolutions, risk warnings and post-investment reports; ③ restoration of regular written disclosure to all investors; ④ verification of continuous compliance of manager registration and fund filing.	These are evidentiary and compliance matters that cannot be remedied after the fact if missing. Item ② should include electronic data solidification — timestamping or notarisation — to pre-empt later allegations of retroactive fabrication.
Presumptively required	① A/B/C/D asset layering across the distressed portfolio; ② written stop-loss resolutions for assets with no recovery space; ③ investor communication procedures on fund extension or liquidation; ④ item-by-item legal opinions on material matters (extension, impairment, asset sale, debt restructuring).	Deferral is defensible only for genuine commercial reasons — a reorganisation at a critical window, negotiations with an acquirer still open — and the reason for deferral should itself be recorded in writing and tracked.
Discretionary	① Capability building in special-asset management; ② preliminary research on new fund architecture; ③ brand and market communication; ④ team structure adjustment.	Strategic and not time-bound; these should not crowd out resources committed to the first two levels.

---

Part III: Legal Positioning — Boundaries of Manager Obligations

1. Sources of Obligation

Norm Layer	Main Content
Laws	Securities Investment Fund Law, art. 9 — duties of loyalty, honesty, prudence and diligence; Civil Code, entrustment contract provisions (arts. 922, 929 et seq.) — the trustee handles affairs per the principal's instructions, and in paid entrustments compensates loss caused by its own fault.
Administrative regulations	Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds (State Council Decree No. 762, effective 1 Sept 2023) — prohibited acts, related-party transaction management, disclosure and reporting obligations, investor suitability.
Departmental rules and normative documents	Interim Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Private Investment Funds (CSRC Decree No. 105); Measures for the Suitability Management of Securities and Futures Investors; Guiding Opinions on Regulating the Asset Management Business of Financial Institutions (breaking rigid payment; prohibition on guaranteed principal and return).
Self-regulatory rules	AMAC Measures for the Registration and Filing of Private Investment Funds and supporting guidelines; Measures for the Administration of Information Disclosure of Private Investment Funds; Guidelines for Private Investment Fund Contracts.
Judicial guidance	Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference on suitability obligations of selling institutions and allocation of the burden of proof; provincial high court guidance on asset management disputes.

Specific articles apply as in force at the relevant time.

2. How Courts Assess "Due Care and Diligence"

PRC courts generally do not substantively review the commercial merits of an investment target — the judiciary does not substitute its own commercial judgment. They review procedure and record, typically across five dimensions:

1. Fundraising — whether suitability procedures were performed (risk assessment, risk disclosure, cooling-off period, call-back), and whether there was fundraising from unqualified investors or public promotion;
2. Investment — whether due diligence was performed, whether the authorised decision-making body deliberated, whether the basis for the decision was recorded, and whether related-party transactions were avoided and disclosed;
3. Post-investment — whether tracking was continuous, and whether reasonable measures and reporting followed once risk materialised;
4. Disclosure — whether disclosure was maintained at the frequency and content agreed in the fund contract, and whether material adverse facts were concealed;
5. Disposal — whether collection, preservation, litigation, or participation in reorganisation followed the occurrence of risk, or whether the asset was simply left unattended.

The evidentiary structure matters more than the argument. In asset management disputes the manager ordinarily bears the burden of proving fulfilment of suitability and disclosure obligations. Archive completeness is therefore itself a substantive defence: a contemporaneous investment committee resolution, however plainly worded, carries far greater evidentiary weight than any explanation composed after the fact. This is why archive reconstruction ranks first among the actions above.

3. Five Scenarios That Actually Generate Liability

Loss does not by itself produce compensation liability. The following do:

#	Scenario	Consequences and Self-Check Points
1	Material defects in investment decision procedure	No IC deliberation, no due diligence, breach of the investment scope or concentration limits in the fund contract. Once established, a "commercial judgment" defence becomes very difficult to sustain.
2	Undisclosed benefit transfer or related-party transaction	Failure to recuse or disclose, or to obtain investor or advisory committee consent; may trigger civil liability and administrative penalty simultaneously.
3	Manifest absence of post-investment management	Prolonged absence of post-investment reports, non-exercise of shareholder or director rights, no monitoring of the use of funds. In distressed portfolios this is the most common point of attack.
4	Inaction after risk materialises	Failure to collect, preserve, or file claims; missed reorganisation filing deadlines or limitation periods. Expiry of a period is the least defensible category of fault.
5	False disclosure or concealment of material facts	Concealing entry into judicial procedures or impairment; reporting good news only. This most readily leads a court to deny honest performance of duties as a whole.

4. Distinguishing Validity, Enforceability and Compliance

Every disposal measure should be tested at three separate levels, and they should not be run together:

Level	Question Answered	Typical Manifestation
Validity	Are the transaction documents or disposal arrangements valid under civil law, or open to invalidation or rescission?	Validity of debt transfer agreements; whether mortgage or pledge was validly created; validity of valuation-adjustment and repurchase clauses; effect of bankruptcy avoidance powers (individual repayment, gratuitous transfer, manifestly unreasonable price) on a proposed disposal.
Enforceability	Even if the right is valid, can property actually be obtained?	Whether the judgment debtor has executable assets; seizure priority; whether enforcement has been terminated as "current proceedings closed"; expected recovery rate for ordinary claims in reorganisation; realisation path for equity pledges.
Compliance	Does the disposal act itself trigger regulatory or self-regulatory liability?	Whether fund extension followed contractual procedure; whether a discounted transfer improperly harms investors; whether a related-party acquisition observed recusal and disclosure; whether reporting was timely.

A claim that is flawless on validity but worth nothing on enforceability does not merit further litigation spending. Conversely, a scheme with strong recovery prospects but a procedurally defective disposal may bury a larger liability exposure for the manager than the amount recovered.

---

Part IV: Cycle Context and Strategic Positioning

1. Structural Change in Primary Market Exit Logic

The following is industry observation rather than legal opinion. In recent years the RMB private equity exit environment has shown:

1. A slower domestic IPO issuance pace — investment logic premised on IPO as the sole exit no longer holds;
2. Reconstruction of primary-market valuation systems, with previously high-valuation projects generally facing book impairment;
3. Generalised extension of fund durations, and a severe mismatch between "exit at maturity" as contracted and actual disposal cycles;
4. A marked rise in the importance of non-IPO channels — S-funds, M&A, negotiated transfers;
5. Greater investor tolerance for losses, and significantly reduced tolerance for opacity.

The legal significance is that distress across a portfolio is to a substantial degree cyclical rather than a series of individual decision failures — but this characterisation must be fixed evidentially (see the white paper approach in Part VIII). Absent that record, cyclical factors are readily re-narrated in an accountability setting as the manager's selective errors.

2. Two Divergent Paths

Path	Characteristics	Assessment
Waiting for the window to reopen	Maintain original investment logic and team structure; compress costs and wait for IPO channels to recover.	Workable for institutions with low duration pressure and a stable LP base; where multiple projects are already distressed, the cost of waiting is usually too high.
Transition into special-asset management	Convert distress-disposal experience into business capability: listed company reorganisation, distressed enterprise investment, debt investment, NPL acquisition and disposal.	Many managers are objectively already on this path. Reorganisation negotiation, claim filing and judicial disposal experience is capability that can be productised rather than pure sunk cost.

3. What a Manager's Real Assets Are During an Adjustment Period

Not the projects under management, but:

1. Manager registration (licence) and continuous operating status;
2. Institutional brand and market credit;
3. LP relationships and willingness to re-invest;
4. Core investment and post-investment teams;
5. Differentiated capability formed in distressed assets.

These five are the objective function for everything below.

---

Part V: Risk Clearing of the Existing Portfolio

1. From Case Analysis to Asset Decision

Analysis organised around individual cases answers "how do we fight this lawsuit." What a board actually needs answered is "should we keep putting money into this asset." Each project is therefore better analysed on four dimensions:

Dimension	Question
① Value	Does the underlying asset still hold actual value? Is that book value, executable value, or a nominal claim only? In bankruptcy or reorganisation, what is the payment priority and expected recovery rate of the fund's claim or equity?
② Cost of continuation	What is the aggregate of further legal, litigation, preservation, guarantee, appraisal and audit fees, plus manager time cost? Is the ratio to expected recovery still rational?
③ Time cost	How much longer is the cycle likely to run? Does it exceed fund duration and the maximum permitted extension? Do the team resources it consumes impair other disposals?
④ Recommendation	Continue enforcement / participate in reorganisation / transfer the claim / debt-to-equity swap / asset replacement / stop and write off — one clear recommendation, not several listed side by side.

2. Asset Layering (Illustrative Framework)

The table below is a schematic. Actual entries must rest on verified facts; risk levels are best colour-coded (red / amber / green) so a board can allocate resources at a glance, and updated quarterly.

Project	Class	Legal Status	Principal Obstacle	Recovery Probability	Suggested Path
A-type example	Class A	Not litigated; operations continuing	Liquidity strain, core business surviving	High	Maintain holding; seek M&A or secondary transfer exit; avoid initiating litigation that could trigger cross-default.
B-type example	Class B	Litigated; assets preserved	Assets exist but priority is low	Medium	Pursue settlement or debt-to-asset swap; in parallel approach claim purchasers and prepare a discounted transfer plan.
B-type example	Class B	In reorganisation	Recovery depends on the reorganisation plan	Medium	Ensure claims are filed and confirmed; seek a seat on the creditors' committee and participate in voting.
C-type example	Class C	Enforcement terminated as "current proceedings closed"	No executable assets	Low	Stop incremental spending; maintain limitation-preserving actions only; include in a debt package for transfer or write-off.
D-type example	Class D	Bankrupt liquidation / deregistered	Liquidation assets insufficient	Very low	After completing claim filing and liquidation participation, adopt a written write-off resolution supported by a legal finality opinion.

Classification standards

• Class A — retains operating value; continue holding.
• Class B — has market or judicial disposal space; set a disposal deadline.
• Class C — low recovery probability but not yet final; stop incremental spending, maintain rights against expiry.
• Class D — no recovery space; write off after completing procedure.

3. Legal Check Points Applicable Regardless of Class

1. Limitation and enforcement periods — expired or not; whether valid interruption evidence exists (collection letters, repayment commitments, account confirmations);
2. Bankruptcy claim filing deadline — filed within the announced period; if not, file supplementary claims immediately and assess consequences;
3. Security interests — whether mortgages and pledges are registered; whether equity pledges are registered with the market regulator; whether guarantee periods have lapsed;
4. Seizure priority and queued seizures — whether prior seizures exist; whether the fund's seizure has lapsed or gone un-renewed;
5. Sealing and authority on transaction documents — authenticity of seals, authority of the legal representative, completeness of board or shareholder resolutions (where seal disputes exist, fix the evidence early);
6. Nominee arrangements — whether equity is held through a nominee, and if so the risk of "surfacing" and of exclusion from enforcement or from the bankruptcy estate;
7. Foreign-related and forex matters — where the fund has foreign investors, offshore structures, or cross-border funding, check ODI/QFLP filings, forex registration, and negative-list access compliance in parallel.

---

Part VI: Fund-Level Exit Design

Waiting until every project is fully resolved before addressing the fund as a whole is, in practice, how funds become stranded indefinitely, investor patience is exhausted, and manager liability accumulates. A phased orderly exit is the better structure.

Stage 1 — Classification and Disposal Deadlines

Complete the A/B/C/D layering and set an explicit disposal deadline for each class. Deadlines serve two legal purposes: they build an evidentiary chain that the manager actively performed its duties, and they prevent a finding of inadequate post-investment management based on indefinite waiting.

Stage 2 — Diversified Exit Paths

Recovery hopes should not rest entirely on court enforcement.

Path	Applicable Scenario	Legal Points and Risks
Judicial disposal	Debtor has clearly executable assets	Seizure priority is decisive; priority claims (construction payments, employee claims, taxes) compress ordinary claim recovery rates.
Claim transfer / debt package sale	Class C assets; batch disposal	Notice to the debtor is required for effectiveness; the discount must be supported by appraisal or market inquiry evidence and follow contractual decision and disclosure procedures to pre-empt "fire sale" allegations; recusal and investor consent are required where the assignee is a related party.
Participation in reorganisation	Portfolio company in reorganisation	The filing deadline is rigid; watch the zeroing effect of equity adjustment on original shareholders; seek creditors' committee membership.
Debt-to-equity swap	Enterprise retains operating value	Assess post-swap governance and subsequent exit channels; avoid exchanging an assertable claim for illiquid equity.
Asset replacement / debt-to-asset swap	Debtor holds non-cash assets	Check title, defects and liquidity of the substitute asset; where the debtor is near bankruptcy, individual repayments risk avoidance by the administrator.
In-kind distribution	Fund liquidation stage	Requires a contractual basis or a specific investor resolution; valuation method and tax treatment must be resolved, and fairness among investors preserved.

Stage 3 — Fund-Level Final Arrangements

Four matters — extension, liquidation, distribution and disclosure — each handled strictly per the fund contract or partnership agreement, with complete procedural records retained:

1. Extension — verify the contractual limits on number and length of extensions and the competent decision-making body (manager discretion / advisory committee / partners' meeting / unanimous investor consent). Procedural defects are the most common line of attack on an extension.
2. Liquidation — determine trigger conditions, composition of the liquidation committee, and voting procedure for the liquidation plan; complete AMAC liquidation filing in parallel.
3. Distribution — follow the contractual waterfall strictly (return of capital, hurdle, catch-up, carried interest). Where carried interest has been drawn while the fund is loss-making overall, assess clawback obligations in advance.
4. Disclosure — disclose the whole liquidation process in writing to all investors, including the basis for disposal prices, an expense schedule, and the final distribution plan.

Expense allocation warning. Whether legal, appraisal and litigation fees incurred in distress disposal are borne by the fund or the manager turns on the expense clause of the fund contract. This is a reliable source of dispute at liquidation and is best clarified in writing, and disclosed, before the costs are incurred.

---

Part VII: Manager Liability Risk Assessment

The ratings below (High / Medium / Low) illustrate how the four risk families can be scored on incomplete information; any actual rating must be revised once documentary verification is complete.

1. Investor (LP) Accountability Risk

Risk Point	Indicative Rating	Analysis and Response
Suitability obligations	To be verified	Confirm that risk assessment questionnaires, signed risk disclosure letters, qualified investor certificates, cooling-off periods and call-back records are complete. Missing documents materially weaken the manager's evidentiary position.
Disclosure continuity	High	Where projects have entered judicial procedures, a disclosure gap or failure to notify material adverse facts is the most direct liability handle. Regular disclosure should resume immediately, with supplementary explanation for the historical gap.
Diligence evidence	High	Turns on archive completeness. Where archives are incomplete, the adverse consequence falls on the manager.
Conflicts and related-party transactions	To be verified	Check for undisclosed participation, co-investment or follow-on arrangements by related parties.
Guaranteed principal / return	To be verified	Difference-filling letters, repurchase commitments or side letters change the nature of liability entirely. First-priority check item.

2. Regulatory and Self-Regulatory Risk

Risk Point	Indicative Rating	Analysis and Response
Maintenance of manager registration	Medium	Verify continuing satisfaction of senior management qualifications, headcount of full-time staff, paid-in capital, business premises and AUM. A prolonged absence of managed funds or new filings risks "abnormal operation" status or deregistration.
Information reporting	Medium	Monthly, quarterly and annual reports plus material event reports must be filed on time; distressed projects are reportable material events.
Fund operating compliance	To be verified	Investment scope, concentration, leverage, fundraising and transfer paths must match filing documents and regulatory requirements.
Extension / liquidation filing	Low	Procedural, but must stay synchronised with contractual procedure to avoid the inversion of "filed but contractual procedure incomplete."

3. Litigation Risk

Risk Source	Indicative Rating	Analysis and Response
Investor claims against the manager	Medium	Typically framed on failure of suitability, diligence or disclosure duties. The defence rests on archives and disclosure records.
Claims by placement agents or channel partners	Low	Check for unsettled fees or repurchase arrangements under placement or financial advisory agreements.
Counterclaims by portfolio company controllers	Medium	In valuation-adjustment and repurchase litigation, defences and counterclaims based on clause validity or manager interference in operations are common.
Personal liability of directors, supervisors and senior management	Low	Liability generally rests with the manager as a legal person; personal exposure rises with intent or gross negligence, or breach of loyalty and diligence duties while serving as a director of a portfolio company.

4. Reputation and Fundraising Risk

Risk Point	Indicative Rating	Analysis and Response
Word of mouth among existing investors	High	Existing investors are both the most likely source of the next fund and the most likely plaintiffs. Communication quality directly determines the risk trajectory.
Public judgment and enforcement records	Medium	Litigation information is publicly searchable and feeds the due diligence conclusions of new investors. Unified explanatory materials should be prepared in advance.
Fundraising capability	High	Failure to settle historical funds in an orderly way is a substantive obstacle to new fundraising; clearing progress is itself part of the fundraising narrative.

---

Part VIII: The Legal Firewall Between Manager and Fund

The foundational project is to sever, at the evidentiary and institutional levels, "failure of fund investments" from "professional negligence of the manager." Five components.

Component 1 — Reconstruct Investment Decision Records

Years after fund formation, materials are commonly scattered across personal computers, email and messaging apps. Archives should be rebuilt project by project, each containing at least:

1. Project initiation materials and due diligence reports (legal, financial, business);
2. IC meeting notices, attendance records, voting records and original resolutions;
3. Risk warnings and records of dissenting opinions — where these exist they must be kept; their evidentiary value exceeds that of unanimous resolutions;
4. Executed transaction documents and sealing approval records;
5. Post-investment tracking reports, periodic financials of portfolio companies, and records of participation in board or shareholder meetings;
6. Internal disposal decision documents made after risk materialised.

Operational point. The purpose is collection and solidification. Historical documents must never be fabricated, backdated or altered. Once fabrication is identified, the issue escalates from procedural defect to integrity, with consequences far heavier than a missing document. Where a document is confirmed lost, the correct response is a written "explanation of missing archives" recording the reason and identifying substitute evidence (emails, chat records, bank slips), with timestamping or notarisation applied promptly to electronic data.

Component 2 — Active Investor Communication

The governing principle is not to wait for investors to ask. A quarterly written fund operation report, sent uniformly to all investors, should cover project progress, litigation and enforcement progress, recoveries, risk explanation, and the next phase of disposal. Its legal value:

1. It builds an evidentiary chain of continuous disclosure that directly answers an allegation of concealment;
2. It lets investors form gradual expectations of loss, reducing the probability of emotionally driven litigation;
3. The transmission records themselves (email, EMS, dedicated platform) are evidence and should be retained uniformly.

Risk warning. Disclosure must be true and measured, and must contain no promissory statements — "expected to be recovered in full," "will certainly be received by year end." A promissory statement can create a new head of liability, which is a greater risk than the non-disclosure it was meant to cure.

Component 3 — Written Legal Opinions on Material Matters

Item-by-item opinions evidence that the manager discharged its obligation of professional analysis:

1. Fund extension or renewal;
2. Confirmation of material asset impairment;
3. Discounted transfer of claims or equity;
4. Debt restructuring, debt-to-equity or debt-to-asset swaps;
5. Decisions to stop spending and write off;
6. Liquidation and distribution plans.

Component 4 — "Failed Project White Papers"

A structured file per distressed project, in a uniform three-part structure:

Part	Content and Evidentiary Purpose
Why it was invested	Industry environment at the time of investment, enterprise condition, investment logic, risks identified and responses adopted. Purpose: show the investment was a reasonable commercial judgment at the decision point and that the necessary investigation and deliberation occurred.
Why it failed	Separate external factors (IPO window closure, sector downturn, policy change, market conditions) from internal ones (operational deterioration, controller dishonesty, financial fraud). Purpose: separate commercial risk from management liability.
What the manager did	A timeline of every action with corresponding evidence references: collection, preservation, litigation, enforcement, claim filing, reorganisation participation, board intervention, shareholder coordination. Conclusion: not a failure of effort, but the commercial absence of remaining recovery space.

One set of materials serves three audiences — investors (communication), regulators and self-regulatory bodies (evidence of performance), and any future litigation (evidentiary base). Produce once, use three times.

Component 5 — Clarify the Manager / Fund Positioning

It is common for a manager's actual controller to describe a holding as "my project." External communications are better standardised to: the investment is an act of the fund; the manager manages it in its own name for the benefit of the fund under the fund contract; the manager's duty is to raise, invest, manage and exit in accordance with law, not to guarantee returns.

On the same basis, the operational details most prone to "piercing" should be checked and standardised:

1. Account segregation — whether fund assets and the manager's own assets are strictly separated, and whether commingling or temporary lending has occurred;
2. Seal management — whether use of the fund's dedicated seal and the manager's company seal is separated, whether sealing approvals are recorded, and whether seals are held by a designated custodian with a log. Irregular seal management is the most common point of attack in subsequent disputes;
3. Execution of external documents — whether issued in the name of the manager or the fund, and whether the wording could be read as a personal commitment by the manager;
4. Concurrent roles — where manager personnel hold positions in portfolio companies, attribution of their conduct and the boundaries of their loyalty duties should be arranged in writing.

---

Part IX: Legal Finality and Stop-Loss for Distressed Assets

This is a question routinely avoided in practice and unusually valuable to answer. The default behaviour is continuous litigation, enforcement, and renewal of seizures: after five years the asset is still worth zero, after ten years it is still worth zero, while legal fees, preservation fees and team attention continue to be consumed.

A formal stop-loss mechanism answers one question: on what conditions can it be determined that an asset no longer justifies further cost?

1. Suggested Determination Standards

A combination of the following can serve as the written basis for stop-loss; meeting three or more is a workable trigger threshold:

1. An effective judgment or award has been obtained and enforcement has been ruled "current proceedings terminated" (zhong ben);
2. Property investigation — online enforcement checks and offline investigation — discloses no executable assets;
3. The debtor has been listed as a dishonest judgment debtor or subjected to consumption restrictions, or its principal assets have been seized or disposed of by priority creditors;
4. The debtor has entered bankruptcy and the administrator's property status report indicates a very low expected recovery rate for ordinary claims;
5. Market inquiry or appraisal shows a transfer price for the claim close to zero, or no interested assignee;
6. Estimated further costs exceed expected recovery.

2. Procedural Requirements

The stop-loss decision must itself be procedurally complete; otherwise a commercial loss converts into manager fault.

1. Obtain a written legal finality opinion on the asset, addressing satisfaction of the standards above;
2. Submit it to the investment decision committee or risk control committee for deliberation, and record a written resolution;
3. Disclose to the advisory committee or to all investors as the contract requires, and obtain consent where required;
4. Maintain limitation-preserving actions even after stop-loss — periodic collection letters with retained delivery evidence — so that the claim does not extinguish entirely, preserving the option if the debtor's asset position improves;
5. Synchronise accounting write-off and tax treatment with the legal procedure, retaining complete vouchers.

The underlying judgment. Many funds ultimately lose not because of the investment decision but because they refuse to end. Ending in an orderly way is evidence of a manager's capacity to perform its duties, not an admission of failure.

---

Part X: Preserving Continuous Operation

Goal 1 — Licence and Continuity

• Self-check the continuous compliance of manager registration each quarter: senior management qualifications, full-time headcount, paid-in capital, business premises, funds under management;
• Keep information reporting uninterrupted, to avoid being listed as an abnormal institution for overdue filings;
• Where all managed funds are approaching liquidation, plan new filings in advance so as to avoid a prolonged window with no funds under management.

Goal 2 — Restoring Investor Confidence

• Replace optimism with transparency: regular, accurate, non-promissory;
• Replace recovery promises with exit capability: show disposal progress rather than projected amounts;
• Establish separate communication channels for key investors, resolving first those most likely to sue.

Goal 3 — Building New Business Capability

Convert distress-disposal experience into externally deliverable capability: special-asset acquisition and disposal, reorganisation investment in listed and large enterprises, distressed enterprise debt investment, M&A restructuring, NPL package disposal. Such business has allocation value in the current cycle and matches capability that a manager working through a distressed portfolio has already accumulated.

Goal 4 — Governance and Internal Control

• Revise investment decision rules: IC composition, voting rules, recusal rules, record requirements;
• Establish post-investment management rules: tracking frequency, report templates, risk escalation paths;
• Establish disclosure rules: frequency, content list, review process, retention requirements;
• Establish related-party transaction and conflict-of-interest rules;
• Establish archive and seal management rules.

---

Appendix: Board Risk Dashboard

Two tables, updated quarterly as standing board materials.

Fund level

Indicator	Value	Description
Portfolio projects		Including exited and unexited
Distressed projects		In debt crisis or judicial procedure
Class A (continue holding)		Completed after layering
Class B (disposable)		Completed after layering
Class C/D (proposed write-off)		Completed after layering
Fund maturity / extensions used		Against the contractual extension limit
Disposal costs this period		Legal, litigation, preservation and appraisal fees
Recoveries this period		Compare against the line above for a cost-benefit ratio

Manager level

Risk Index	Rating	Trigger
Investor risk		Disclosure continuity and archive completeness
Regulatory risk		Registration maintenance and information reporting
Litigation risk		Whether trigger conditions exist, independent of claims filed
Reputation and fundraising risk		Settlement status of historical funds
Continuous operation risk		AUM and new filing arrangements

---

This article discusses PRC law as generally understood at the time of writing and does not address the laws of the Hong Kong SAR, the Macao SAR or the Taiwan region. It is a general practice observation, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship arises from it. Outcomes in any particular matter depend on facts, documents and the applicable rules in force.