Key Takeaways
- • The Kentucky Court of Appeals dismissed a fraud lawsuit filed on behalf of the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KRS) alleging fiduciary breaches and unsuitable investments by hedge fund managers, ruling that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate direct harm required to proceed with litigation.
- • KRS invested approximately $1.5 billion in hedge fund vehicles starting in 2011, marketed as "absolute return" assets designed to reduce portfolio volatility, but allegedly failed to generate sufficient returns or reduce risk as promised.
- • The defendants—The Blackstone Group, KKR & Co., Prisma Capital Partners, and Pacific Alternative Asset Management—successfully argued that plaintiffs could not establish standing to sue, with the hedge funds denying any wrongdoing and characterizing the funds as unsuitable for the pension plan's needs.
- • Plaintiffs alleged the hedge funds sold KRS "extremely high-risk, secretive, opaque, high-fee, and illiquid vehicles" that generated excessive fees for the managers while producing poor returns and ultimately losses for the pension fund and Kentucky taxpayers.
- • The appellate court decision resolves the 2017 lawsuit on procedural grounds, removing a significant litigation risk for major alternative asset managers regarding their sales practices and fiduciary obligations to public pension plans.
Summary
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit that alleged major hedge fund managers, including Blackstone and KKR, breached fiduciary duties by selling the Kentucky Retirement Systems unsuitable and high-fee investment vehicles. The appellate court ruled that the employees bringing the suit lacked standing to proceed because they could not demonstrate direct harm stemming from the hedge fund investments, effectively ending the litigation on procedural grounds rather than addressing the substantive claims.
The lawsuit centered on approximately $1.5 billion in hedge fund investments that KRS began acquiring in 2011. These investments were marketed as "absolute return" assets intended to reduce portfolio volatility and risk while generating returns sufficient to support the pension plan's assumed 7.75% annual return target. Plaintiffs argued that the funds failed on both counts, alleging they did not lower risk, reduce illiquidity, or generate adequate returns to help KRS meet its long-term funding obligations.
The complaint characterized the hedge fund vehicles as "extremely high-risk, secretive, opaque, high-fee, and illiquid" instruments that were "impossible for trustees to properly monitor, accurately value or even calculate the total fee burden." Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants targeted underfunded public pension funds like KRS as buyers for exotic, high-profit hedge fund products, generating excessive fees for the managers while producing poor returns and ultimately losses for the pension fund. They contended that the unsuitable investments damaged both KRS and Kentucky taxpayers.
The defendants—Blackstone, KKR & Co., Prisma Capital Partners, and Pacific Alternative Asset Management—denied wrongdoing and filed motions to dismiss in 2018, arguing that plaintiffs had not established the requisite injury-in-fact to justify their participation in the lawsuit. The appellate court's dismissal upholds this procedural bar, removing a significant litigation risk for the major alternative asset managers and narrowing the legal exposure of hedge fund firms regarding their sales practices and disclosure obligations to institutional investors managing public pension assets.
The lawsuit centered on approximately $1.5 billion in hedge fund investments that KRS began acquiring in 2011. These investments were marketed as "absolute return" assets intended to reduce portfolio volatility and risk while generating returns sufficient to support the pension plan's assumed 7.75% annual return target. Plaintiffs argued that the funds failed on both counts, alleging they did not lower risk, reduce illiquidity, or generate adequate returns to help KRS meet its long-term funding obligations.
The complaint characterized the hedge fund vehicles as "extremely high-risk, secretive, opaque, high-fee, and illiquid" instruments that were "impossible for trustees to properly monitor, accurately value or even calculate the total fee burden." Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants targeted underfunded public pension funds like KRS as buyers for exotic, high-profit hedge fund products, generating excessive fees for the managers while producing poor returns and ultimately losses for the pension fund. They contended that the unsuitable investments damaged both KRS and Kentucky taxpayers.
The defendants—Blackstone, KKR & Co., Prisma Capital Partners, and Pacific Alternative Asset Management—denied wrongdoing and filed motions to dismiss in 2018, arguing that plaintiffs had not established the requisite injury-in-fact to justify their participation in the lawsuit. The appellate court's dismissal upholds this procedural bar, removing a significant litigation risk for the major alternative asset managers and narrowing the legal exposure of hedge fund firms regarding their sales practices and disclosure obligations to institutional investors managing public pension assets.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.