Private Equity Forum
www.pwc.lu
5 June 2014
PwC
Welcome Vincent Lebrun, PwC Luxembourg
2
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Agenda
9:10 – 9:50 Market Update 9:50 – 10:30 BEPS 2014 update for the Private Equity industry 10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break 11:00 – 12:00 Impacts of AIFMD on the Private Equity industry Experiences and trends as from 12:00 Walking lunch
3
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Market Update Johan Blaise, PwC Luxembourg
David Garcelan, PwC Luxembourg
4
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Agenda
1. Market trends
- Global trends
- Luxembourg trends
2. Fundraising
- Global fundraising
- Fundraising in Luxembourg
3. Investments & Exits
4. SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
5. Looking forward
5
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Market trends
6
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Global trends
7
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Global trends at a glance
Section 1.1 – Global trends
1. Better macro conditions (but abnormal conditions in financial markets)
3. Investor confidence. In 2013, global fund raising up by 21%
2. Asset class keeps on performing. 14.4% average IRR by Jun’13
4. Bigger funds but less amount of funds
6. Strong M&A activity. $599.1bn global deals value in Q1 2014
7. High prices. Average EBITDA multiple in 2013 for global M&A deals: 12.6x
8. Exit mood.$111.9bn PE exits value on Q1 2014. This is the highest value in the historic series since Q1 2001
9. Regulatory landslide & shifting tax landscape
5. Management fees & carry under increasing pressure from LPs
Source: Mergermarket M&A trend report Q1 2014
Source: Mergermarket M&A trend report 2013
Source: Bain & Company Global PE report 2014
Source: Bain & Company Global PE report 2014
Source: Mergermarket M&A trend report Q1 2014
8
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Inflationary forces
Section 1.1 – Global trends
Economic
“stability”
Cheap
credit
Dry powder
& liquidity in
corporates
Strong
public
markets
High
prices
9
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Luxembourg trends
10
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
SIF and Part II funds
Section 1.2 – Luxembourg trends
2013 vs 2012 Assets : + 35% # sub-funds: + 39 %
As at end 2013, 91% of PE/VC sub-funds are structured via a SIF, owing 96% of assets
2 1 1 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.1
2 3
8 10
12
17.6
23.8
27 24
18 18 13 16 31
20
57
104
136
166
237
321
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Nu
mb
er
of
PE
su
bfu
nd
s
EU
R b
illi
on
Assets SIF Assets Part II # Part II # SIF
11
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The SICAR A successful vehicle for private equity structuring
Section 1.2 – Luxembourg trends
2013 vs 2012 Assets : - 4% # SICAR: + 5.5 %
12
17 20
16
21
30 26.6 25.4
91
151
182 200
235
267 273 288
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Nu
mb
er
of
SIC
AR
s
EU
R b
illi
on
Total NAV EUR # SICAR
2013 vs 2012 # subfund 2012 : 337 # subfund 2013 : 363
+8%
12
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Private Equity Funds: Luxembourg market overview
Section 1.2 – Luxembourg trends
2 1 1 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.1 2 3
8 10 12 17.6
23.8 17 20 16
21
30
26.6
25.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EU
R b
illi
on
AuM PE funds/SICAR
SICAR SIF Part II
27 24 18 18 13 16 31 20 57 104 136 166
237
321
182
221
240 266
301
337
363
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Nu
mb
er
of
PE
su
bfu
nd
s
# PE subfunds
SICAR SIF Part II
13
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Geographic origin of sponsors is dominated by 4 jurisdictions
Section 1.2 – Luxembourg trends
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
# PE funds
Origin of promotors
And...
Other EU
countries
Egypt
Russia
Source: CSSF and PwC analysis
14
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Largest Luxembourg Private equity funds Promoters
Section 1.2 – Luxembourg trends
With more than 200 promoters of
Luxembourg domiciled private equity funds, the
market is very diversified.
Promoter SIF/Part II # SICAR # AUM (EUR mio)
Partners Group 2 25 5,3
Universal Investment 8 4,3
Carlyle Group 7 3,5
ARDIAN (prev AXA PE) 4 5 2,8
Oranje-Nassau Energie 1 1,8
LGT Capital Management 10 1,6
Natixis 2 1 1,6
Pictet Funds 18 1,5
Nordic Capital 1 1,4
Oppenheim 10 1,2
At least 22 promotors in
scope of AIFMD
158 AIF at least in scope
15
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The Luxembourg Limited Partnership vehicles
Section 1.2 – Luxembourg trends
End of May 2014: # SCSp : 176 # SCS (created over the same period): 100
1 1
16 17 21
69
88
105
123
148
176
3 11 13
21 28
46 53
64 75
91 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
# c
om
pa
nie
s c
re
ate
d
SCPp
SCS
16
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Fundraising
17
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Global fundraising
18
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
2013: the best year since 2009
Section 2.1 – Global fundraising
• 902 PE funds raised $ 461bn worldwide, 21% increase by contrast to 2012
• Less funds, but bigger funds
104
217
361
547
668 688
320 296 330 382
461
0
200
400
600
800
Global fund raising ($bn)
Source: Bain & Company Global PE Report 2014
19
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The trend continues in Q1 2014
Section 2.1 – Global fundraising
13.95% capital raised
18.50% No. funds closed compared to Q1 2013
20
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Assets under management
Section 2.1 – Global fundraising
• AuM have increased in 2013 to a staggering $3,466 bn
• The dry powder has increased to $ 1,046bn in 2013 (11.16% up from 2012)
• However, the ageing of capital has improved in 2013: capital deployed & extension of investment periods
21
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The asset class keeps on outperforming: 14.4% IRR as at June 2013 for long-term buyout fund returns
Section 2.1 – Global fundraising
Source: Bain & Company Global PE Report 2014 (data provided by Cambridge Associates)
22
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Fundraising in Luxembourg
23
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Top 10 Worlwilde Private Equity house (fundraising)
Presence of the major players in Luxembourg
Section 2.2 – Fundraising in Luxembourg
Largest Private Equity Fund managers worldwide ranking by level of past 5 years fundraising
# Company Headquarter
location
PE structure
domiciled in
Luxembourg?
1 TPG Capital USA YES
2 The Carlyle Group USA YES
3 Blackstone Capital Partners USA YES
4 KKR USA YES
5 Warburg Pincus USA YES
6 Goldman Sachs & Co USA YES
7 Advent International USA YES
8 Apollo Global Management USA YES
9 Bain Capital USA YES
10 CVC Capital Partners UK YES
“Top 10 Private Equity fund
raiser worldwide
have structures domiciled in
Luxembourg”
Source : PEI 300 and Pwc Analysis
24
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Top 5 European Private Equity firms (fundraising) Presence of the major players in Luxembourg
Section 2.2 – Fundraising in Luxembourg
Largest Private Equity Fund managers european ranking by level of past 5 years fundraising
# Company Headquarter
location
PE structure
domiciled in
Luxembourg?
1 CVC Capital Partners UK YES
2 BC Partners UK YES
3 Bridgepoint UK YES
4 PAI Partners FR YES
5 Ardian (prev. Axa Private Equity) FR YES
“All major European
player have a presence in
Luxembourg”
Source : PEI 300 and Pwc Analysis
25
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Top 15 Fund of Private Equity funds firms
Section 2.2 – Fundraising in Luxembourg
Largest Fund of Private Equity Fund managers worldwide
# Company Headquarter
location PE funds domiciled
in Luxembourg?
1 Alpinvest Partners Netherlands No
2 Goldman Sachs Asset Management US No
3 Harbourvest Partners US No
4 Credit Suisse AM US Yes
5 Partners Group Switzerland Yes
6 Hamilton Lane Advisors US Yes
7 JP Morgan PE Group US Yes
8 Pantheon UK Yes
9 Ardian (prev.AXA Private Equity) France Yes
10 LGT Capital Partners Switzerland Yes
11 Adam Street Partners US Yes
12 Capital Dynamics Switzerland Yes
13 Blackrock US Yes
14 Neuberger Berman US No
15 Lexington Partners US No
“10 of the top 15 Fund of Private
Equity fund managers
worldwide have funds domiciled in Luxembourg”
26
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Luxembourg private equity funds size (commitment)
Section 2.2 – Fundraising in Luxembourg
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nu
mb
er
of
SIC
AR
s
Size above EUR250 mios
Size below EUR100 mios
#SICAR Total SIZE
(EUR) bn
Above EUR 250 mios 40 25
Between EUR 100 mios &
EUR 250 mios 45 7
Below EUR 100 mios 188 6
Total 273 38
Total
unfunded
EUR 9.6 bios
27
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Investments & Exits
28
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Investments
Section 3 – Investments & Exits
• According to Preqin, 688 private equity-backed buyout deals with an aggregate value of $80bn announced in Q1 2014
29
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Exits
Section 3 – Investments & Exits
• Exits for $87bn in Q1 2014
30
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
31
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
SICAR investment strategies
Section 4 – SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
Buy Out 50.8%
RE 20.4%
VC 16.9%
Mezzanine 4.6%
Sustainable 4.6%
Microfinance 1.5%
Not specified 1.2%
Recent asset class
Debt funds
/Distressed debt
Agriculture/farming
Art
Source: PwC analysis
32
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
SICAR investment structure
Section 4 – SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
Source: PwC analysis
Investment
Structure
AUM Unfunded Avg # invest.
Direct
investments
EUR 18 bios EUR 3.5
bios
9
FoF EUR 9 bios EUR 5.6
bios
11
64%
36%
Directinvestments
FoF
33
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
SICARs legal forms
Section 4 – SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
SA 21%
Sarl 11%
SCA 63%
SCS 5%
SA
Sarl
SCA
SCS
Large majority of
SICARs adopted
the SCA form.
SCSp ?
34
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Management fees and operating charges
Section 4 – SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
Low High Average
0.5% 3.5% 1.70%
Low High Average
0.10% 5.5% 1.13%
• Management fee rate (on commitments)
• Total operating expenses on total assets (Administration, Custodian, Legal, Professional fees)
35
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The custody market is fragmented with more than 40 banks providing services
Section 4 – SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
• A large number of players provide custody services to SICARs and PE Funds (SIF or Part II Funds) but however not all are “actively” marketing such services.
• Some banks have invested in dedicated IT system as well as dedicated teams (separate PE/RE department)
• Impact of new PSF status to act as depositary for PE assets?
• Fees (based on total assets)
Low High Average
0.01% 0.96% 0.14%
36
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Central administration services
Section 4 – SICAR vehicle – Strategy & Operating costs
• Functions done by local office usually include supervision of service providers, reporting to investors, …
• Fees (based on total assets)
Low High Average
0.03% 1.40% 0.34%
37
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Looking forward
38
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
What are the forces that will shape PE over the next few months?
Section 5 – Looking forward
Liquidity in market (incl. an historic level of dry powder) will likely keep driving prices up
Fierce competition for deals
Less conventional deals (e.g. minority stakes, partnerships, investments in small companies, amalgamations, etc.)
Exit mood
FED tapering program
Increase in interest rates?
Possibility of debt crisis?
Bubble in public markets?
AIFMD, FATCA, BEPS, proposal to amend the parent/subsidiary directive, etc.
1. High prices 2. Macro trends ! 3.Regulation & tax
Source: PwC Germany PE trend report 2014
39
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
Thank you
PwC
BEPS 2014 update for the Private Equity industry Caroline Goemaere, PwC Luxembourg Vincent Lebrun, PwC Luxembourg David Roach, PwC Luxembourg
41
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS for Private Equity
BEPS in the public eye
• Continuing media focus on tax planning by major corporates (Apple, Google, etc.), plus lots of political momentum, means BEPS must be seen as “climate change”, rather than a short-term phenomenon
• The BEPS initiative is increasingly causing some countries to take assertive unilateral action, introducing new laws to deal with issues (e.g. to deny deductions if the income is not taxed elsewhere)
• Many tax authorities, now emboldened by BEPS, are looking to increase challenges of taxpayers’ strategies
• Shareholders, group management and boards will increasingly ask those who manage a group’s tax about its current position and the potential impact of BEPS
42
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS for Private Equity
Which bits might bite (worst)?
Funds Fund managers
4 Limit base erosion via interest deductions
Leverage of deal structures
5 Counter harmful tax practices
Rulings Rulings?
6 Prevent treaty abuses WHT mitigation WHT mitigation
7 Prevent artificial avoidance of PEs
Mobile senior employees
8-10 Transfer pricing to be in line with value creation
Brand value, sub- advisory fees
13 TP documentation – country by country reporting (CbCR)
Visibility of structures, much more documentation
Disclosure of global value chain
43
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
EU Commission – the “early adopter”
Proposal for an EU Parent/Subsidiary Directive general anti-avoidance rule - “GAAR”
• EU Commission put out proposals on 25 November 2013 to amend the P/S Directive, by adding a “GAAR” that would withdraw Directive benefits if there are “artificial arrangements … do not reflect economic reality”
• Aims to “overwrite” the CJEU’s Cadbury Schweppes doctrine. Any EU intermediate holding structure would be at risk, unless it could be asserted with confidence that structure was not in place “for the essential purpose of obtaining an improper tax advantage”?? The GAAR would have a “blunderbuss” effect, until new CJEU cases clarified
• This all might mean that only Luxembourg “regional HQ” structures, with high-level management from Luxembourg of the businesses of companies owned by a Lux Holdco, would be GAAR-safe?
• The GAAR requires unanimity of EU MSs before it can be adopted into the Directive – while this is very unlikely in the short term (6 May decision to defer until Italy EU Presidency), the EU Commission is unlikely to give up, notably given similarity of March 2014 OECD BEPS treaty abuse proposals
44
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS – where are we now?
OECD 2014 publication of Discussion Draft reports
30 January Action 13 – Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting (“CbCR”) (20 pages)
14 March Action 6 – Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances (“Treaty Abuse”) (31 pages)
19 March Action 2 – Neutralise the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements (Treaty issues – 14 pages; Domestic law issues - 79 pages)
24 March Action 1 – Address the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy (81 pages)
45
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS – where are we now?
The Action Plan – due by 30 September 2014
The Action Plan – due by 30 September 2015
Action 5 Harmful Tax Practices / Compulsory Spontaneous Exchange of Rulings (phase 1) – Review of Member Country regimes
Action 8 Transfer Pricing of Intangibles – Draft of changes to OECD TP Guidelines (and Model Convention?)
Action 15 Develop a Multilateral Instrument – Report on international law and tax issues
Action 4 Limit base erosion via interest deductions - Report recommending design of domestic rules
46
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS – where are we now?
Transfer pricing documentation and CbCR
• Would require all MNE groups to prepare and maintain contemporaneous TP documentation in the form of a group “master file” and “local files” with OECD-specified detailed content
• Per the Discussion Draft, CbCR template would show – on a per company basis – sales, profits, intra-group flows, as well as “economic indicators” including fixed assets, employee numbers, total salary bill and 25 highest paid. Would be available to all tax authorities and give them much greater transparency
• Much opposition, including indications that US IRS has concerns that “global formulary apportionment” could in practice arise. “25 highest paid” reporting likely not to happen. CbCR template not to be part of “master file”? 19 May 2014 public hearing at OECD – major debate on whether all tax authorities should be able to force local affiliate to file all CbCRs, or whether CbCRs got filed with tax authority of group parent, and other tax authorities only got via “exchange of info” mechanisms
47
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS – where are we now?
TP documentation and CbCR – implications for Private Equity
• Where Private Equity houses had their profits taxed would be much more transparent to tax authorities – e.g. what share of overall fee income ended up at local deal sourcing functions?
• Within individual investments operating multi-nationally, financial reporting systems would need to be adapted/upgraded to be able to generate contemporaneous “master files”, CbCR templates, and “local files”
• Within individual investments operating multi-nationally, again a possible greater exposure to TP audits, because how profits were shared between countries would under CbCR be much more transparent to tax authorities – as would any “ruling” that confirms an allocation of profit to a territory (this would also have to be reported as part of CbCR)
48
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
BEPS – where are we now?
Hybrid mismatches
• Two papers – longer one complex, recommending changes to domestic laws – shorter treaty changes one has less impact, refers to other BEPS Actions
• Identifies specific situations that should be caught – “D/NI” (deduction/no inclusion) and “DD” (double deduction) – covers both individual financial instruments with hybrid characteristics, hybrid entity payments,
• Overall approach recommended is for “paying country” to deny deduction if recipient country doesn’t tax as ordinary income. If this treatment is not applied a “secondary rule” comes into play, and the “recipient country” must either tax income (if D/NI) or deny the deduction (if DD).
• Discussion Drafts are highly technical. Initial reaction is that rules are similar to those adopted/proposed in UK/NL/F/AUS/Germany etc., or (for hybrid entities) US “dual consolidated loss” rules. Concerns – inconsistency in adoption, complexity, impact on internal financing harms growth?
• Complex “imported mismatch” rules may mean that PPL/CPEC/equivalent financing of Luxembourg platforms eventually have to be re-examined
49
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse
The OECD 14 March Discussion Draft – treaty shopping
Source State
Bad Land
Source State
Bad Land
Good Land
Income flow
Income flow
“Treaty shopping” – a person who is a resident of a third state (e.g. Bad Land) attempting to access indirectly the benefits of a treaty (e.g. Source State and Good Land)
50
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse
The OECD 14 March Discussion Draft – preventing treaty abuse
• Far-reaching and extreme - sees any inclusion of any intermediate country in an income flow as “treaty shopping” – OECD has “gone nuclear”?
• New Model Treaty clause would contain
- Very restrictive US-style “limitation of benefits” regime – no “derivative benefits” rules, limited let-outs for “active trade or business” flows; AND
- “Main purposes” test for denial of benefits (i.e. no treaty benefits if one of the main purposes of an arrangement was getting treaty benefits) – a GAAR!
• Also has many other proposals to counter tax-driven structuring – e.g. a blunt overall “effective rate of tax” rule to deny treaty benefits to flows to “low-tax” branches, no treaty benefits at all for “dual resident” companies
51
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Limitation-on-Benefits proposals – “active conduct of trade or business” let-out
S State Company
P State Company
Source state Partner state
No need to be Qualified Person
Active conduct of trade or business IN P STATE
Income in connection with or incidental to P State trade or business
52
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
Preventing treaty abuse
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse
The BEPS “main purposes” GAAR
“Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Convention, a benefit under this convention shall NOT be granted in respect of an item of income,
if it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances,
that obtaining that benefit was ONE of the MAIN PURPOSES of any arrangement or transaction that resulted directly or indirectly in that benefit,
unless it is established that granting the benefit in these circumstances would be in accordance with the object and purpose of the relevant provisions of this Convention.”
Draft paragraph 6 of Art [X] OECD Model Tax Treaty
“Entitlement to Benefits”
53
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse
The BEPS “main purposes” GAAR – some words of slight comfort
• “… where an arrangement is inextricably linked to a core commercial activity, and its form has not been driven by considerations of obtaining a benefit, it is unlikely that its main purpose will be considered to be the obtaining of that benefit.”
54
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
How badly could it affect Private Equity – really?
Interest flows – Non-EU deals
Fund vehicle (e.g. English LP)
LuxCo(s) (Luxembourg)
Investors
DealCo (Deal State)
Target (Deal State)
classes of shares NO WHT
X
Bank NO WHT
X WHT – Fund vehicle is not a “qualifying person”, so LuxCo(s) denied treaty benefits
Assuming Bank is “qualifying person”
DEDUCTIBLE? 2015 BEPS recommends on “interest capping”
• Deal State is non-EU • All Deal State treaties have
March 2014 BEPS anti- “treaty shopping” text
55
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
Fund vehicle (e.g. English LP)
LuxCo(s) (Luxembourg)
Investors
DealCo (EU State)
Target (EU State)
classes of shares NO WHT
Bank NO WHT
NO WHT so long as EU I & R Directive still applies
Assuming Bank is “qualifying person”
DEDUCTIBLE? 2015 BEPS recommends on “interest capping”
• Deal State is EU • All Deal State treaties have
March 2014 BEPS anti- “treaty-shopping” text
• EU I & R Directive does NOT yet include any GAAR
How badly could it affect Private Equity – really?
Interest flows – EU deals
56
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
Fund vehicle (e.g. English LP)
LuxCo(s)
Investors
DealCo
Target
Exit gain is TAXED if Deal State domestic rules tax non-resident sellers of shares. No treaty protection
WHT (non-treaty rate) Fund vehicle is not a “qualifying person”, so LuxCo(s) denied treaty benefits
• Deal State is non-EU • Deal State treaty with
Luxembourg has March 2014 BEPS anti-“treaty shopping” text
classes of shares
X
How badly could it affect Private Equity – really?
Dividend flows and exits – Non EU deals
57
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
Fund vehicle (e.g. English LP)
LuxCo(s)
Investors
DealCo
Target
Exit gain is TAXED if Deal State domestic rules tax non-resident sellers of shares. Fund vehicle is not a “qualifying person”, so LuxCo(s) denied treaty protection
NO WHT so long as EU P/S Directive still applies
• Deal State is EU • Deal State treaty with
Luxembourg has March 2014 BEPS anti-“treaty shopping” text
• EU P/S Directive does NOT yet include any GAAR
classes of shares
How badly could it affect Private Equity – really?
Dividend flows and exits – EU deals
58
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
Reaction, and compromise?
• Strongly negative response from public consultation (e.g. BVCA)– proposals would deny treaty benefits to most non-publicly traded groups with foreign shareholders, and almost all Private Equity fund structures
• The Draft we now see is probably the “high water mark” - public consultation outcry has emphasised the overkill, and that international trade and cross-border capital flows could be damaged . “Turning the clock more than 50 years back”. Contravenes EU treaties?
• Need to get back to a situation where holding companies with “genuine economic activity” still get treaty benefits? Much pressure for a less restrictive Model “LoB” clause? More help for fully regulated funds, which ought to be “qualifying persons” – linking to 2010 OECD work on CIVs?
• Tax authorities also have yet to have direct input – the OECD needs consensus, and this will not be easy… e.g. US won’t accept “main purposes” rule, or “blunt instruments”?
59
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
CIV Fund vehicle = UCI - fully
regulated???
LuxCo(s)
Investors
DealCo
Target
BUT Deal State treaty benefits might still be denied if Deal State sustains argument that interposition of LuxCo(s) had as a “main purpose” the getting of treaty benefits
BUT moderation may only help Part II SICAVs, not SIFs or English LP’s / tax neutral vehicles?
classes of shares
Fund house
ManCo / GP
… THEN LuxCo’s would not automatically be denied access to Deal State treaty
Private Equity – what needs to happen?
IF OECD BEPS anti- “treaty shopping” text is moderated to allow CIV’s to be “qualifying persons”…
60
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Preventing treaty abuse – where are we now?
CIV Fund vehicle
Lux “HQ”Co
Investors
DealCo
Target
Lux “HQ”Co continues to get treaty benefits because EITHER CIV is “qualifying person” AND Lux ”HQ”Co is not caught by “main purposes” test OR (automatically) if “active conduct of a trade or business” entitlement can apply – more likely if broadened to a “genuine economic activity” test. (“Main purposes” test would not then be relevant)
Fund house
ManCo / GP
“HQ”Co does all strategic management of DealCo’s, BUYING IN managerial expertise from Fund House / GP / ManCo
DealCo DealCo DealCo
Target Target Target
Service fees
(less fees)
SUBSTANCE
Private Equity – what needs to happen?
61
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The way forward
More broadly - what is likely to happen?
• BEPS won’t go away - but it certainly won’t happen as fast as the OECD - or the EU Commission - want
• Many countries will be highly resistant to changing long-established distinguishing features of their tax system
• Governments will all still try to attract and retain “mobile capital”
• If the US doesn’t make big changes, then BEPS is less likely to cause real “top-down” change to the global tax and transfer pricing “framework” (OECD Model Treaty, OECD TP Guidelines)
• Change at “framework” level most likely to be agreed where it moves towards the way the US already does things (e.g. LoB clauses in treaties)
• Most change will come “bottom up” (unilateral action by individual countries – e.g. more anti-abuse rules, stopping “hybrids”, new “interest capping” rules) but having been helped by BEPS –so there may still be “mismatches”
62
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
The way forward
More broadly - what is likely to happen for Private Equity?
• For Private Equity – main “substance” in “platform”? At least part of GP activity moving to “platform”?
• More Lux UCIs as fund vehicles – if fully-regulated fund vehicles were to become “qualified persons” not caught by “Limitation of Benefits”, but other fund vehicles (e.g. those only affected by AIFMD) remained caught?
• Ever-tightening limitations on base erosion using interest payments would further “moderate” returns that Private Equity funds could generate?
• In Luxembourg - December 2013 Coalition Programme promise - further steps to be taken to attract major Private Equity funds – what will/can the Luxembourg government actually do – how effective will BEPS and the EU be in curbing “tax competition”?
63
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Impacts of AIFMD on the Private Equity industry Experiences and trends James Bermingham, Aztec Financial Services S.A Johan Blaise, PwC Luxembourg Jean-Christian Six, Allen & Overy Luxembourg Moderated by: Xavier Balthazar, PwC Luxembourg
64
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
PwC
Thank you
Your opinion matters Please fill in the satisfaction survey
65
5 June 2014 Private Equity Forum
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does
not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this
publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty
(express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained
in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Société
coopérative, its members, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability,
responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining
to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on
it.
© 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers, Société coopérative. All rights reserved. In this document,
“PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers, Société coopérative, which is a member firm of
PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal
entity.