Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Sullivan’s Private Investment Funds & Institutional Investors Group focuses on the needs of private investment fund sponsors and investors at every stage: formation, operation and liquidation. Our attorneys collaborate with other attorneys with deep experience in investment transactions for our fund clients.

Rising stock market trading chart

Our attorneys have formed funds ranging in size from several million dollars to several billion dollars with a variety of fundraising strategies and investment focuses. Our representation of fund sponsors includes structuring to meet client investment strategies and goals and helping to navigate the complex domestic and cross-border regulatory and tax issues involved in fund formation and operation relevant to U.S. and non-U.S. investors.

    We understand that sponsors need efficient fund structures that adapt to a variety of investments, as well as the importance of maintaining long-term relationships with fund investors.

    Representative Client Work

    Recent Sponsor Representations

    • Negotiated structuring of an investment advisory relationship (with approximately $389 million of transactions closed to date) focused on U.S. commercial and residential real estate acquisitions between an Irish bank and a domestic advisor and represented this fund in all of its significant U.S. commercial real estate acquisitions
    • Formed a $200+ million Boston real estate fund and represented partnership in more than 15 U.S. acquisitions
    • Structured four private timber REITs, a timber fund and a commercial farmland fund for a combined equity capital raise of approximately $2 billion
    • Representing a bio-pharma early-stage venture fund in its formation
    • Represented a global institutional investor in a joint venture involving an investment of $100 million to develop and manage an agricultural project in Australia

    Recent Investor Representations

    • Negotiated commitments by multiple investors (government and private pension funds, non-U.S. persons, fund of funds, foundation) in a multi-billion dollar growth equity and mezzanine fund
    • Advised on more than 90 investments in venture, private equity, and debt funds during past three years, aggregating in excess of $2.5 billion in commitments
    • Liquidated exchange fund through liquidating trust

    Recent Investor Representations — Secondary Transactions

    • Represented an offshore secondary fund buyer of a portfolio of over 100 interests
    • Represented a joint venture in the negotiation of a joint venture agreement with another secondary fund for the acquisition of 40 limited partnership interests; negotiation of related credit agreement and assignment agreements for all transfers
    • Representation of a buyer of a portfolio of 15 limited partnership interests from an educational institution
    • Representation of a buyer of a portfolio of 24 limited partnership interests from an offshore trust
    • Representation of three offshore fund of funds (Cayman Islands and Luxembourg) in the purchase of a single commitment from a defaulting investor involved in bankruptcy proceedings
    • Acted as lead counsel for a financial services group in over $1 billion of joint ventures with offshore investors to acquire commercial office properties in the United States through a series of private REITs
    Viewpoints
    All Viewpoints
    SEC Proposes New Regulation E-Delivery
    On July 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed a new rule, Regulation E-Delivery, that would expand the ability of issuers, including registered investment companies, investment advisers, and broker-dealers, to use electronic delivery (“e-delivery”) to satisfy information delivery requirements under the federal securities law.  If adopted as proposed, Regulation E-Delivery would broadly address the e-delivery of “covered information” by “covered entities” to “covered recipients” (each as described further below) and provides the requirements and conditions for the delivery of regulatory information electronically without first obtaining investors’ affirmative consent. The proposed rule is now available for public comment.  Public comments are due by September 21, 2026. Proposed Regulation E-Delivery Currently, many required regulatory disclosures and reports are delivered in paper format, unless the investor or shareholder affirmatively elects otherwise.  The SEC proposed the rule to make e-delivery the default method based on its understanding about investors’ use of and preferences for electronic media and to continue toward a regulatory framework more suitable for the modern era.  If adopted, Regulation E-Delivery would be the SEC’s primary rule addressing e-delivery and would supersede the SEC’s current guidance-based e-delivery framework. As noted above, proposed Regulation E-Delivery would apply to the e-delivery of “covered information” by “covered entities” to “covered recipients.”  The proposing release defines those terms generally as: Covered information: any information required to be delivered to a covered recipient under the federal securities laws. Covered entities: any person that has an obligation to deliver covered information to a covered recipient under the federal securities laws. Covered recipients: any current or prospective customer, client, investor, security holder, counterparty, or similar recipient of information.  The proposed rule does not make any distinction between retail and institutional clients and investors, although the SEC has asked for public comment on this issue. As proposed, Regulation E-Delivery would permit, but not require, covered entities to use e-delivery as the default method of delivery for covered information.  Generally, a covered entity would be able to rely on the proposed rule where: (1) the covered recipient has provided an electronic address; (2) the covered entity has provided a prominent disclosure to the covered recipient that it will send covered information to the electronic address provided; and (3) the covered recipient has not opted out of e-delivery. Under the proposed rule, the permissible method of e-delivery would depend on whether the covered information includes personal financial information (“PFI”).  If covered information does not include PFI, direct delivery to a recipient’s electronic address, either attached or included in the body of an email, would be permitted.  If covered information includes PFI, a covered entity may not deliver this information directly to an electronic address but would instead have to deliver a statement of availability to the recipient’s electronic address, which would include a link to a website where the covered recipient could access the required information. The proposed rule also details other requirements and conditions for satisfying Regulation E-Delivery, including the process for investors to receive paper reports, opt out of e-delivery, and how investors may update their electronic addresses.  The proposed rule also would require covered entities to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and remediate failed e-delivery, which would include detecting an invalid or inoperable electronic address via bounce-backs or other means.  If a failed e-delivery is identified, the covered entity must promptly take reasonable remediation steps. Additional Observations We note the following: The SEC also is proposing to rescind Rule 30e-3 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.  That rule provides alternative methods for registered investment companies to satisfy their shareholder-report-transmission requirements.  The SEC also is proposing to amend certain rules in Regulations 14A and 14C and Rule 14d-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which address the dissemination of proxy materials and tender-offer materials. The proposed rules would not change any timing requirements or regulatory deadlines under the federal securities laws, such that, regardless of the e-delivery method used, the covered entity would be required to deliver the covered information no later than the date by which the information is currently required to be delivered. As noted above, the proposed rules would require entities to adopt written policies and procedures to identify and remediate failed e-delivery.  Registered investment companies and investments advisers likely would have to draft and adopt new compliance policies and procedures to account for Regulation E-Delivery, rather than rely on current rules, in order to ensure that they have the ability to take reasonable remediation steps, including obtaining new electronic addresses or delivering the covered information in paper format until the recipient provides a new electronic address. If the rules are adopted as proposed, investors who currently receive regulatory information in paper format would first receive two paper notices if they would be transitioned to e-delivery, with such notices including the ability to opt out of e-delivery.  The first paper notice would need to be delivered at least 180 days before the transition, with a paper follow-up notice delivered at least 30 days before the transition. The range of regulatory disclosures and reports available for electronic delivery under the proposed rule is broad, including prospectuses, annual and semi-annual shareholder reports, proxy statements, Form CRS disclosures, and Form ADV Part 2 brochures.  For a fuller list of covered information, please see Appendix A below. For More Information This Client Alert has been prepared by John Hunt, a Partner, Rachael Schwartz, a Partner, and Mike Davalla, Counsel, in the Investment Management practice group of the international law firm of Sullivan & Worcester LLP.  For more information, Mr. Hunt may be reached in our Boston office by calling +1 (617) 338-2961 or our London office by calling +44 (0)20 7448 1000, or by email at jhunt@sullivanlaw.com; Ms. Schwartz may be reached in our New York office by calling +1 (212) 660-3069 or by email at rschwartz@sullivanlaw.com; Mr. Davalla may be reached in our Boston office by calling +1 (617) 338-2804 or our Washington, D. C. office by calling +1 (202) 775-2200, or by email at mdavalla@sullivanlaw.com. This Client Alert is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Appendix A – Covered Information Under the E-Delivery Proposal Type of Covered Entity Type of Covered Information Investment Companies Fund prospectuses Annual and semi-annual shareholder reports Rule 19a-1 notices Proxy statements and information statements Tender offer statements (for applicable investment companies) Investment Advisers Form ADV Part 2 brochures Marketing and testimonial disclosures Agency cross transaction disclosures Custody rule account statement notices Broker-Dealers Trade confirmations Form CRS disclosures Reg S-AM disclosures Other Issuers Issuer prospectuses Annual reports to security holders Proxy statements and information statements Tender offer statements and solicitation/recommendation statements Offering circulars * As noted in the proposing release, the above list is non-exhaustive, as the definition of “covered information” in the proposed rule may include disclosures not listed here but that may be required under, for example, Regulation Best Interest, as well as disclosure that be required of covered entities in the future under applicable laws and regulations.
    SEC Establishes Retail Fraud Working Group to Combat Fraud Targeting Everyday Investors
    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced on July 7, 2026, the creation of the Retail Fraud Working Group, a new initiative within the Division of Enforcement designed to identify and combat fraud targeting main street investors. The announcement formalizes a priority that SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock previewed in his May 13, 2026, remarks to the Managed Funds Association Legal & Compliance Conference, reflecting the current Commission’s broader back-to-basics enforcement posture. For issuers, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and private fund managers with retail exposure, the announcement signals that retail-facing enforcement will be a sustained focus of the Division’s work in the months and years ahead. Overview The Retail Fraud Working Group will leverage staff and resources across the Commission to identify fraud and other misconduct targeting retail investors, including offering frauds, pump-and-dump schemes, market manipulation, and breaches of duties owed to customers by investment advisers and broker-dealers. The Group’s initiative is threefold: (i) to serve as a dedicated resource to proactively generate cases; (ii) to work with the Commission’s domestic regulatory partners and foreign counterparts; and (iii) to assist with educating retail investors in coordination with the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Assistance. The Group will be led by Kate Zoladz, Deputy Director, West, and Kim Frederick, Assistant Director of the Asset Management Unit. Ms. Frederick’s role in the Asset Management Unit suggests that adviser and private fund conduct affecting retail investors will be a focus area for the Group. Chairman Paul S. Atkins described the initiative as “a return to the core values and principles of the enforcement program,” and Director Woodcock emphasized the Group’s role in “generating cases, building partnerships with our regulatory counterparts, and using data and technology to find and stop those who seek to take advantage of retail investors.” About Our Small-Firm Task Force Sullivan & Worcester’s Small-Firm Task Force is actively engaged in advising clients on the implications of the Retail Fraud Working Group and can assist with responding to any related SEC inquiries. The Task Force unites the firm’s Capital Markets, Regulatory Compliance, Government Investigations, and Financial Services Litigation practices, each with deep experience advising issuers, broker-dealers, investment funds, and institutional investors in the small-cap, micro-cap, and mid-market segments. Our interdisciplinary team is well-positioned to help clients navigate the SEC’s renewed retail-fraud enforcement priorities and to develop practical, risk-based compliance strategies aligned with the current regulatory environment.
    The Exit Overhang: PE’s Liquidity Challenge
    John Hunt was quoted in Financier Worldwide's feature, "The exit overhang: PE's liquidity challenge," examining how an unprecedented backlog of private equity exits is influencing fund strategy, liquidity and valuations. As sponsors navigate a challenging exit environment, John explained that flexibility remains paramount: "As a practical matter, fund sponsors will use whatever exit routes produce the greatest and fastest returns." He noted that alternative structures will continue to play an important role, adding, "Sponsor-to-sponsor transactions and continuation funds, though not as splashy as IPOs, are important, and I expect will continue to be important even with a return of a robust IPO market, because they give other groups of strategic investors access to likely undervalued investments that simply may need a longer runway to develop." John also addressed the valuation challenges facing the industry, observing, "Asset values of private assets have always been an important issue – not just now, and not just because of the slowdown in exits. These types of assets have always been difficult to value, and the lack of arm's-length transactions that can be used as comparables has only exacerbated the problem." On the investor side, he highlighted increased scrutiny of fund governance and economics: "Investors also appear to be focusing on certain fund offering terms. Among other things, they appear less generous in permitting GPs to continue a fund's term without limited partner advisory committee approval. They also appear to be more interested than normal in clawback terms, especially as they relate to the structure of the waterfall."
    Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026
    Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition
    Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester announced that its practice groups and attorneys have been ranked and recommended in the Legal 500 United States 2026. The firm’s Real Estate practice was newly ranked Tier 1 in the “Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m)” category and the firm maintained rankings across a variety of practice areas. Partners Nicole Crum and John Steiner were newly ranked as Leading Partners and Ryan Rosenblatt as a Next Generation Partner. Peers and more than 300,000 corporate counsel were surveyed and interviewed globally in the past 12 months to assess law firms’ overall visibility and reputation, culminating in detailed rankings and editorial. The Legal 500 is an independent guide, and firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit. Sullivan's lawyers received the following rankings: Leading Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Outstanding Lawyers Nationwide Benjamin Armour - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) Ameek Ashok Ponda - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)  Nicole Crum - Mutual/registered/exchange-traded funds Lewis Segall - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) John Steiner - Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m) Douglas Stransky - International Tax Joel Telpner - Fintech Next Generation Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Up-and-Coming Lawyers Nationwide Ryan Rosenblatt - General commercial disputes – mid-market ($250-500m) Sarah Wellings - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) Practice Areas Ranked and Attorneys Recognized Corporate Governance “Our lead partner, Nicole Crum, who leads the investment industry practice, is exceptional. She demonstrates strong industry knowledge yet is very personable and anticipates what we need to know or what we should consider doing to handle any matter. The team roll up their sleeves and provide recommendations as to how we as a board should handle any matter. Strong service commitment and work ethic!” “The team we have at Sullivan & Worcester has served our company for years and knows the management team, staff as well as our board members. They are extremely responsive and proactive and anticipate what we should be aware of, concerned about, excited about, and how to handle oversight, processes and protocols to ensure we are carrying out our fiduciary duties. The partners are experts in this industry.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: Howard Berkenblit, David Leahy Dispute Resolution/General Commercial Disputes “Diverse skillset. Client centric. Transparency. Urgency provided on all matters.” “I have worked with Gerry Silver for over 15 years and have found his pragmatic approach to complex matters refreshing. He understands our business, culture and market, and will give me his opinion in a digestible manner.” Next Generation Partner: Ryan Rosenblatt Recommended Lawyers: Gerry Silver, Patrick Dinardo, Laura Steinberg, Michael Sullivan, Amy Zuccarello, Erika Todd, Christopher Shields, Anna Lea McNerney Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and Retirement Plans: Design “The level of expertise is top shelf. David Guadagnoli seems to know all of ERISA and IRS rulings.” “David Guadagnoli and Amy Sheridan both have superior knowledge in their respective areas. I value the ability to raise issues whether simple or complex. The firm takes the same diligent approach across all spectrums of complexity.” Recommended Lawyers: David Guadagnoli, Amy Sheridan Environment: Transactional Fintech “Sullivan & Worcester is one of the finest firms with which I have worked.” “The lawyers are excellent, and the firm consistently provides the highest quality of customer service.” Leading Partner: Joel Telpner Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman, Benjamin Armour, Scott Kaufman, Harvey Bines, Christopher Curtis Land Use/Zoning Recommended Lawyers: Gregory Sampson, Ashley Brooks, Victor Baltera, Karen Kepler, Ashley Tan M&A: Corporate and Commercial: Venture Capital and Emerging Companies Recommended Lawyers: Scott Kaufman, Lewis Segall, Benjamin Armour, Michael Student M&A: Middle-Market ($0-250m) “The partner Lewis Segall has been working with our company for 15 years and we have a good working relationship with him. He knows our history and very attentive to our needs.” “Lewis Segall is very attentive to our needs. We very much value him.” Leading Partners: Benjamin Armour, Lewis Segall Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman Mutual/Registered/Exchange-Traded Funds “Sullivan & Worcester's practice is defined by its deep expertise in investment funds and its ability to deliver clear, commercially grounded advice across the full fund lifecycle—from formation and structuring to regulatory compliance and complex transactions.” “The team is highly experienced, collaborative, and excel in efficient execution and clear communication.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: David Leahy, David Mahaffey, Rachael Schwartz Real Estate Leading Partner: John Steiner Recommended Lawyers: Ashley Brooks, Karen Kepler, Gregory Sampson, Sharon Leifer, Louis Monti, Spencer Stone, Ashley Tan Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) “We have built multiple complex and sophisticated REIT platforms over the years and worked with many top-tier REIT specialists, but Sullivan’s REIT practice is by far the best, with Sarah Wellings.” Leading Partner: Ameek Ashok Ponda Next Generation Partner: Sarah Wellings Recommended Lawyers: Angela Gomes, Louis Monti, Shu Wei, Cameron Cosby International Tax “The international collaboration with S&W is exceptional.” “What really stands out is their willingness to engage, openness to different ideas and opinions, clearly expressed expectations, and clients' objectives.” Leading Partner: Douglas Stransky Recommended Lawyers: Lewis Greenwald, Eric Rietveld Tax > US Taxes: Contentious Recommended Lawyers: Richard Jones, David Nagle, Daniel Ryan, Caroline Kupiec Tax > US Taxes: Non-Contentious “Sarah Wellings is, quite simply, the best lawyer we have ever worked with. Her expertise extends far beyond tax and REIT matters, encompassing governance, financing, and complex commercial issues. Decades of experience and technical mastery make her an indispensable partner. Sarah is our central point of contact who makes everything seamless. Her in-house counsel background gives her a unique client perspective: she anticipates needs, solves problems before they arise, and delivers concise, well-structured updates that simplify even the most intricate issues. She coordinates effortlessly with all parties involved. Her judgment is exceptional. Sarah strikes the perfect balance between comprehensive academic rigor and practical, business-oriented advice. She combines technical REIT/tax excellence with commercial instincts, ensuring every recommendation is both legally sound and strategically smart. Her ability to translate complex law into clear, actionable guidance is unmatched. Sarah is incredibly responsive without ever sacrificing quality. She treats our matters as her own, demonstrating a rare ownership mindset and collaborative spirit. Her integrity is uncompromising, giving us absolute confidence in her counsel. In short, Sarah Wellings defines legal excellence: reliable, commercially minded, and client-focused. Working with her feels like being in the safest possible hands; she consistently exceeds expectations and orchestrates complex transactions with clarity and precision.” Recommended Lawyers: Ameek Ashok Ponda, Richard Jones, Douglas Stransky, Sarah Wellings About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier international law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best-in-class client service.

    Private Investment Funds & Institutional Investors

    Private Investment Funds & Institutional Investors