A continuation fund is a new vehicle that acquires one or more assets from an existing fund while the same general partner continues managing those assets. Existing limited partners may receive a liquidity option, a way to continue their exposure, or a combination, depending on the transaction. The central question is why this structure serves the existing investors, not simply whether new capital is available.
This guide explains the roles, compares four documented continuation-capital platforms and provides a research worksheet. It is for GPs and LP teams organizing an informed discussion, not a recommendation to launch a vehicle or elect to sell or roll. A continuation transaction is different from an individual shareholder selling private-company stock or an LP independently selling a fund interest.
Start with the structure and the problem
A single-asset continuation vehicle concerns one asset; a multi-asset vehicle concerns several. The same manager's presence on both sides creates conflicts that require attention. ILPA's October 2026 guidance emphasizes transaction rationale, alternatives, transparency, pricing and informed LP decisions. It is principles-based industry guidance, not legislation or a universal transaction checklist.
Begin a research brief with the problem: an asset's next phase, the fund's time horizon, capital needs or differing investor liquidity preferences. “The company needs longer” is incomplete unless the team can explain what would happen during that period and what other routes were considered.
| Participant | Role to identify | Question for the research file |
|---|---|---|
| Existing fund | Current asset holder | Which interests would be transferred, and what remains behind? |
| GP | Manager associated with both the existing fund and proposed vehicle | Who is responsible for the proposal and for resolving identified questions? |
| Existing LPs | Investors receiving transaction information and proposed choices | Which internal people must evaluate the actual materials? |
| New vehicle and capital | Proposed purchaser and its financing participants | Who is expected to provide capital, on what documented basis? |
| Advisers and governance bodies | Distinct financial, legal and review roles | Who does each adviser represent, and what is their scope? |
This role map is an organizational aid. It does not determine approval authority, legal duties, voting requirements or any investor's rights. Those depend on the governing documents and circumstances and should be reviewed by the responsible professionals.
Four continuation-capital platforms to research
These examples were selected for explicit first-party evidence of continuation transactions or a dedicated strategy. They are not a return ranking, a complete buyer universe or proof of available capital for a specific process. A fund closing is not the same as remaining dry powder, and a press release is not a deal-submission invitation.
| Platform | Documented evidence | Research fit | What remains to confirm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ardian | Dedicated single-asset strategy, November 27, 2025 | GP-led single-company continuation research | Current team, asset and sponsor fit, proposed role and process |
| HarbourVest | PECS announcement, February 17, 2026 | Single-asset sponsor-backed companies, primarily North America and Europe | Company characteristics, transaction role and current allocation process |
| Coller EQT | Verdane multi-asset transaction, May 11, 2026 | Evidence of a lead role in a multi-asset continuation vehicle | Whether the proposed assets and structure fit the current mandate |
| Carlyle AlpInvest | Atom Fund II announcement, July 15, 2026 | Dedicated single-asset sponsor-backed transactions, mainly North America and Western Europe | Relevant team, sponsor relationship and actual transaction requirements |
Ardian: distinguish single-asset investing from generic secondaries
Ardian's strategy article describes Single Asset Solutions, combining secondaries and co-investment expertise to make anchor investments in continuation vehicles holding mid-market companies.
That is a more specific research reason than “large secondaries investor.” Prepare an asset-level and sponsor-level brief rather than treating the opportunity as an undifferentiated portfolio of LP interests. Do not transfer the article's market forecasts or historical performance language into an expected outcome for a new proposal.
HarbourVest: research the dedicated PECS route
HarbourVest's PECS announcement describes a purpose-built single-asset continuation program for sponsor-backed companies, primarily in North America and Europe.
Use that documented scope to investigate the relevant team and process. The firm's broader private-markets platform does not make every asset or structure a fit. The press contact in an announcement is for media, not an assumed financing intake route.
Coller EQT: keep transaction evidence precise
The current Coller EQT release documents Coller Capital as sole lead investor in Verdane's multi-asset vehicle involving Arrive Group, Talentech and Pet Media Group. The historical release uses the Coller Capital name; the current site uses Coller EQT. Count it as one provider, not two.
The transaction establishes a documented role in that deal. It does not establish a universal check size, current open intake or suitability for unrelated assets. Investigate the specific assets, sponsor and proposed lead or participation role.
Carlyle AlpInvest: identify the single-asset program
Carlyle AlpInvest's Atom Fund II release describes a dedicated single-asset continuation strategy focused on sponsor-backed companies mainly in North America and Western Europe. The linked official page has English release text within a Japanese-localized site route.
Record the dedicated strategy rather than blending it with the platform's LP-interest acquisitions, portfolio financing or other activities. A stated fund capacity is not a commitment to a proposed vehicle. Relevant underwriting, team access and timing still require direct confirmation.
Worked example: organize a proposal without recommending an election
Illustrative case, not a real fund or transaction: Northbridge Fund II owns an operating company, Atlas Services. Management has a proposed expansion plan. Some existing LPs want liquidity; others want to evaluate continued exposure. The GP is researching a new vehicle, while its advisers are also reviewing other feasible paths.
The team should not start by declaring that a continuation fund is “best.” It can first create a question register that makes the commercial case and missing information visible. In this example, no valuation, return forecast, deadline or investor election has been assumed.
| Research item | Completed illustrative entry | Owner and next evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Asset and operating case | Atlas Services; proposed expansion requires a documented plan | Portfolio team: reconcile the plan with actual performance |
| Reason for new structure | Different investor time horizons and an asset-holding question | GP: explain why the existing arrangement may not address the need |
| Other paths | Alternative routes remain under review | Advisers: record what was genuinely considered and why |
| Capital research | Investigate dedicated single-asset teams | Deal team: verify current mandate and role before sharing restricted materials |
| Investor questions | No sell or roll recommendation made | LP-facing team: collect questions and route them to accountable specialists |
| Decision status | Research only, not an approved transaction | Responsible governing bodies and advisers: review actual documents |
This is useful even if the proposal does not proceed. It leaves a readable explanation of the problem, alternatives and information gaps rather than a collection of investor logos. It also stops a capital-provider meeting from being mistaken for a completed governance process.
Compare a single-asset proposal with a multi-asset alternative
Extend the same fictional case. Northbridge is also considering whether a second company, Beacon Logistics, belongs in the proposed vehicle. That creates a different research question from simply making the Atlas proposal larger. The team must understand each business and explain the combined scope before comparing capital providers. Neither version below is a recommendation.
| Research question | Atlas-only illustration | Atlas and Beacon illustration |
|---|---|---|
| What is being evaluated? | One company's operating plan and proposed holding rationale | Two separate company plans and a reason to combine them |
| What does the reader already know? | Identify the information already received about Atlas | Identify familiarity with each asset separately, without assuming equal knowledge |
| What evidence is missing? | Atlas-specific operating and proposal questions | Separate evidence files for both companies and the combined proposal |
| How should providers be screened? | Documented single-asset strategy is a relevant starting point | Verify actual multi-asset appetite rather than inferring it from single-asset experience |
| What decision remains? | Whether the actual Atlas proposal merits further formal evaluation | Whether the combined scope has a defensible rationale and enough information for further evaluation |
Keep two rows in the research register until the scope is genuinely resolved. A provider's interest in Atlas alone does not establish interest in Beacon or the combined vehicle. Conversely, a documented multi-asset transaction elsewhere does not prove the proposed combination is suitable.
Use the current ILPA resources, not an old draft
ILPA released Continuation Vehicles: Advancing Alignment Through Best Practices on October 20, 2026. Read the full guidance alongside its GP checklist and LP evaluation questionnaire. These are complementary resources, not a substitute for reviewing the transaction materials and obtaining appropriate advice.
Keep a source-version field in your internal document index. Record the document title, date, URL, responsible reader and any question for counsel. Do not treat a completed checklist as certification that a transaction is fair or appropriate.
Copy the continuation-research worksheet
This original worksheet organizes research and responsibilities. It is not an election form, legal checklist or replacement for ILPA's materials.
| Field | Your entry | Evidence owner and next action |
|---|---|---|
| Existing fund, asset and proposed vehicle | [Exact names and relationships] | [Who verifies the structure?] |
| Commercial problem | [Why the current arrangement may not address the need] | [What business evidence supports that statement?] |
| Alternative routes | [Options genuinely examined, without a preset conclusion] | [Which adviser owns the analysis?] |
| Provider and strategy | [Exact platform, single-asset or multi-asset evidence] | [Official URL, date and current mandate question] |
| Proposed capital role | [Lead / participant / not established] | [Who can confirm the role and information needed?] |
| Pricing evidence | [What supports the proposed price, and which assumptions remain open?] | [Named valuation or finance professional; source and review status] |
| Fees and expenses | [Which amounts affect each participant, and where is the explanation?] | [Named finance/accounting reviewer; model and document reference] |
| Conflicts and responsibilities | [Which overlapping roles or incentives need an explanation?] | [Named counsel or responsible governance reviewer; question and status] |
| Document index | [Source versions and approved material locations] | [Who controls access and revisions?] |
| Open investor questions | [Question, factual basis and unresolved assumption] | [Named finance, legal or investor-relations owner] |
| Decision status | [Research / proposal / formal review / other actual state] | [What evidence permits the next step?] |
Keep the process legible
Separate a provider's documented strategy from its interest in your proposal. Separate a management forecast from reconciled actuals. Separate the team's explanation of an investor choice from the investor's own decision. These distinctions make a research file useful without pretending a general guide can resolve the transaction.
For every unanswered question, record a responsible person and a source location. Avoid storing multiple unmarked versions of the same answer. If a material assumption changes, identify the affected documents and have the responsible team decide how to communicate it. Do not distribute confidential information simply because a source page or application form is public.
The existing investment-memo lesson provides a separate exercise in distinguishing evidence from assumptions. The commercial-diligence materials guide can help organize operating evidence, but does not cover the legal requirements of a continuation process.
Research scope and disclaimer
Finta reviewed the linked official provider sources and the full October 2026 ILPA guidance and companion resources on October 20, 2026. The four examples show documented continuation activity or strategies, not open capacity, guaranteed terms, performance or suitability. Source dates and entity names are preserved so readers can distinguish current platform identity from historical transactions.
This article is general education, not investment, financial, legal or tax advice and not a recommendation to sell, roll or establish a fund. Finta is not a law firm. Consult your attorney or accountant and your qualified investment advisers about governing documents, conflicts, valuation, elections, taxes and any proposed transaction.