当私募基金投资出现亏损或收益不达预期的情况，投资者往往通过提起诉讼、仲裁的方式挽回收益损失。在此过程中，基金管理人在基金募集、投资及管理等各阶段的责任常常成为双方争议焦点。笔者通过系统梳理近年来相关司法判例，以厘清、总结司法实践中，私募基金管理人常见的违约行为及法律责任。根据笔者的经验，司法实践中与私募基金管理人责任相关的争议，通常集中于业务流程中管理人的登记备案、适当性审查、审慎投资及信息披露这些忠实、勤勉义务。鉴于私募基金投资属于风险投资，投资者通常需就其遭受损失的事实以及基金管理人行为与损失间的因果关系，承担举证责任。司法机构关于基金管理人责任的判定亦相对谨慎。
作者：世辉律师事务所 | 姜明泽 | 杨秋词在基金相关协议没有特别约定的情况下，基金管理人未履行登记、备案义务的，法院通常会结合以下要素综合认定是否存在基金投资的实质：（1）涉案协议已约定基金投资的主要安排，如基金管理人权利义务、基金运作方式、出资方式、基金收益分配原则、退出清算等；（3）已履行基金投资的主要程序，如向投资者书面提示风险，出具基金认购确认书，进行回访确认等。如涉案基金满足前述要素，在管理人未完成基金备案的情况下，法院通常进一步判断投资者请求的理由是否充分。以投资者常见的理由“合同目的无法实现”为例，目前司法实践存在不同观点。部分法院认为，基金备案属于管理性规定，未备案并不必然导致合同目的无法实现。另有法院认为，基金未备案会导致合同目的无法实现，且应归因于基金管理人未履行相应义务。因此，投资者有权要求解除合同，返还投资款，并赔偿损失。相反，如涉案基金不满足前述要素，则法院倾向于按照民间借贷关系或委托理财关系认定合同性质，并据此确定管理人责任。在此情形下，如合同约定的“投资期”业已届满，法院通常支持投资者要求还本付息的请求。根据相关规定，私募基金管理人须评估投资者的风险识别和承担能力，并保证其与私募基金风险评级相匹配。司法实践中，管理人须举证以下事实，以证明其尽到适当性审查义务：（1）提供风险揭示书，并由投资者参与并确认风险承受力调查问卷；（2）基金管理人充分告知投资者基金产品的风险收益特征及产品情况；（3）投资者书面确认其自愿承担投资风险。值得注意的是，投资者所确认的内容需包括其投资的私募基金种类及风险等具体内容，否则投资者的签字并不能直接推断私募基金管理人已履行适当性义务。就违反适当性义务的法律后果，《九民会议纪要》已明确规定，赔偿损失应为金融消费者所受的实际损失。实际损失为损失的本金和利息，利息按照中国人民银行发布的同期同类存款基准利率计算。因此，如投资者主张按照涉案合同约定的年化收益率计算损失数额的，法院通常不予支持。根据我们的经验，基金管理人存在以下情况可能会被司法机关认定未尽审慎投资义务：
（1）未审慎调查投资项目相关运行情况、股权结构、合法合规性以及受偿安排可行性等；
（2）未按合同约定的方式投资，如未按约定投资范围运用基金财产，或擅自变更投资对象；
（3）未能持续监控投资情况，作出合理投资决策。在司法实践中，除审查审慎投资义务外，法院还会综合管理人其他违约行为，如未准确、及时披露信息，以及违约行为与投资者财产损失间是否存在相当的因果关系，来判定管理人是否承担法律责任及承担的责任范围。
如基金管理人严重违反审慎投资义务，法院通常判决其赔偿投资者投资本金及利息损失。值得注意的是，对于投资者要求解除合同的请求，法院会采取相对谨慎的态度。在合同无明确约定的情况下，投资者行使法定解除权的，法院通常审查以下因素，综合判断基金管理人是否根本违约：
（1）投资者是否曾就管理人违约行为提出异议；
（2）投资者是否曾接受投资收益，并已初步实现涉案合同目的；
（3）基金管理人是否就其违约行为及时作出合理说明并采取补救措施。
How courts view responsibility of private fund managers
Investors often turn to litigation or arbitration to recoup their money whena private fund suffers losses or the returns are not up to expectations. In this process, the responsibilities of fund managers in the stages of fundraising, investment and management often become the focus of disputes. Looking at recent precedents, we can seek to clarify and summarise the common default behaviour and legal responsibilities of private fund managers in the eyes of the courts.
Judges in disputes related to the responsibilities of private fund managers usually focus on the fiduciary duty and duty of diligence of managers in business processes, such as registration and filing, suitability review, prudent investment and information disclosure. As private fund investment is a venture investment, investors are usually required to bear the burden of proof on the fact that they suffered losses and the causal relationship between the fund manager’s behaviour and the losses. Courts are relatively cautious in judging the fund manager’s responsibilities.
01Registration and filing
If the fund manager fails to fulfil the registration and filing obligations when there are no special provisions in the relevant fund agreement, the court will usually determine whether there is the essence of fund investment in combination with the following elements:- The agreement involved has already specified the main arrangements for fund investment, such as the rights and obligations of the fund manager, fund operation mode, capital contribution mode, fund income distribution principle, liquidation for withdrawal, etc.
- No commitment is made on fixed income.
- The main procedures of fund investment have been fulfilled, such as warning investors of risks in writing, issuing fund subscription confirmation, and conducting follow-up confirmation.
If the fund meets these conditions, the court usually further judges whether the reasons for the investor’s request are sufficient if the manager fails to complete the fund filing. Take the common reason of investors that “the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved” as an example, for which there are different opinions in judicial practice at present. Some courts hold that the provision of fund filing is subject to administrative regulations, and failure to file the fund does not necessarily lead to the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract.Other courts hold that failure to file the fund will lead to the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract, which should be attributed to the fund manager’s failure to fulfil the corresponding obligations. Therefore, investors shall have the right to demand the rescission of the contract, return of the funds invested and compensation for losses.If the fund does not meet the conditions, the courts tend to determine the nature of the contract as a private lending relationship or entrusted financial management relationship, and determine the manager’s responsibility accordingly. In this case, if the “investment period” specified in the contract has expired, the court usually supports the investor’s request for principal and interest.Private fund managers must assess the risk identification and bearing capacity of investors, and ensure that the profile matches the risk rating of the funds they are being sold.The manager must prove to the courts that he has fulfilled his obligation of suitability review by presenting the following facts:- The fund manager has provided a risk disclosure statement, and investors have participated in and confirmed the questionnaire of risk tolerance.
- The manager has fully informed investors of the risk and return characteristics and product conditions of the fund products.
- The investors have confirmed in writing that they voluntarily undertake the risks.
It is worth noting that the contents confirmed by investors should include the types and risks of private funds they invest in, otherwise the signatures of investors cannot directly infer that the private fund managers have fulfilled their obligations of suitability review.As for the legal consequences of violating the obligation of suitability review, the Minutes of the National Court Working Conference on the Tial of Civil and Commercial Cases by Courts clearly provide that the compensation for losses should be the actual losses suffered by financial consumers. The actual loss is the lost principal and interest, and the interest is calculated at the benchmark interest rate of similar deposits for the same period issued by the People’s Bank of China. Therefore, if an investor claims to calculate the amount of loss at the annualised rate of return stipulated in the contract involved, the court usually does not support the claim.03Prudent investment and information disclosure
According to the authors’ experience, a fund manager may be found to have failed to fulfil his prudent investment obligation in the following situations:- Failing to prudently investigate the operation, equity structure, legal compliance and feasibility of compensation arrangement of investment projects.
- Failing to invest in the way stipulated in the contract, such as failing to use the fund property according to the specified investment scope, or changing the investment objective without authorisation.
- Failing to continuously monitor the investment situation and make reasonable investment decisions.
In addition to examining prudent investment obligations, the court will also judge whether the manager bears the legal liability and the scope of liability by considering other default behaviour of the manager, such as failure to disclose information accurately and in a timely manner, and whether there is a causal relationship between the default behaviour and the losses for investors.If the fund manager seriously violates the prudent investment obligation, the court usually rules that it shall compensate the investor for the loss of investment principal and interest. It is worth noting that the court will take a relatively cautious attitude towards the request of investors to rescind the contract.In the absence of an explicit provision in the contract, if the investor exercises the statutory rescission right, the court usually examines the following factors to judge whether the fund manager is in fundamental breach of contract:- Whether the investor has raised any objection to the manager’s breach of contract.
- Whether the investor has accepted the investment income and has preliminarily achieved the purpose of the contract involved.
- Whether the fund manager gives a reasonable explanation and takes remedial measures in time for its breach of contract
版权与免责本文章仅供业内人士参考，不应被视为任何意义上的法律意见。未经世辉律师事务所书面同意，本文章不得被用于其他目的。如需转载，请注明来源。如您对本文章的内容有任何问题，可联系本文作者姜明泽律师、杨秋词律师或您熟悉的其他世辉律师。
姜明泽 合伙人
jiangmz@shihuilaw.com
姜明泽律师的主要执业领域为民商事争议解决及金融、房地产法律服务，办理的争议解决案件主要包括公司股权投资纠纷、银行金融纠纷、房地产及建设工程纠纷等。
姜明泽律师曾在最高人民法院、上海市高级人民法院等各级法院代表大型国有集团公司及在华跨国企业办理众多复杂诉讼案件，亦在中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会、上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会、香港国际仲裁中心处理多起疑难仲裁案件。姜明泽律师现任国际商事仲裁委员会会员、瑞士仲裁协会会员、新加坡国际仲裁中心青年委员会会员、伦敦国际仲裁院青年委员会会员。姜律师同时担任维也纳27届VIS MOOT仲裁员，南通仲裁委仲裁员，获国际咨询工程师联合会FIDIC争议解决证书。