Guide to Recent Private Credit-Related Litigation
July 29, 2026
The legal framework governing private credit disputes is evolving, driven by the explosive growth of private credit products, and their increasing availability to retail investors. From securities fraud claims against Business Development Companies (“BDCs”) to challenges to investment advisers’ fee structures, litigation activity is rising.
O’Melveny has been tracking this litigation trend closely and has assembled an interdepartmental group to monitor the landscape. As part of that effort, we have created a Private Credit Litigation Tracker, a regularly updated resource to help clients stay ahead of risks.
We also highlight below the articles and alerts we have published related to this topic. These resources will continue to be updated as this market continues to evolve and judicial decisions further clarify the legal framework. For questions about any of these matters, please reach out to the contacts listed below.
Subscribe here to receive notifications when this page is updated.
Key Takeaways:
- Securities fraud claims are the dominant trend — Sections 10(b) and 20(a) Exchange Act and fiduciary duty claims remain among the most common theories, targeting BDCs, asset managers, and individual officers, but the volume of Section 36(b) fee-challenge suits is closing the gap.
- Investment adviser fee challenges are emerging — Section 36(b) claims under the Investment Company Act now span multiple plaintiffs’ firms and multiple suits against the same fund families, with newer complaints adding individual-officer defendants and more sophisticated valuation evidence, and seeking rescission of advisory agreements.
- All cases are in early stages — Every tracked case remains at the pre-motion to dismiss stage.
Related Client Alerts:
- Scrutiny in Private Credit is Expanding, Creating New Litigation Risks for BDCs, Credit Managers, and Retail Distribution Channels
- Scrutiny in Private Credit – Potential Disputes Market Participants Should Watch Out For
- Responsible Retailization of Private Credit: Potential Regulatory Focus for Broker Dealers
Private Credit Litigation Tracker:
|
Case |
Claims |
Categories of Defendants |
Status/Outcome |
|
Muniz v. Ostrover, No. 26-cv-00477 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Breach of fiduciary duty; gross mismanagement; waste of corporate assets; unjust enrichment; Violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act |
Individual officers and directors; asset manager as nominal defendant (Blue Owl Capital, Inc.) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer (case currently stayed pending Goldman) |
|
Goldman v. Blue Owl Capital Inc., No. 25-cv-10047 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 |
Asset manager (Blue Owl Capital Inc.); individual officers |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; motions to appoint lead plaintiff pending (response deadline currently stayed) |
|
Delman v. Blue Owl Credit Advisors LLC, No. 26-cv-3468 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violations of Investment Company Act of 1940 Sections 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) and 47(b) (rescission of advisory agreement) |
Investment adviser (Blue Owl Credit Advisors LLC); BDC (Blue Owl Capital Corporation/OBDC) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; on June 29, 2026, defendant requested leave to file motion to dismiss; pre-motion conference scheduled for September 10, 2026 |
|
Ataii v. Blue Owl Credit Advisors LLC, No. 26-cv-2260 (D. Md.) |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Sections 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) and 47(b) (recission of advisory agreement) |
Investment adviser (Blue Owl Credit Advisors LLC); BDC as nominal defendant (Blue Owl Technology Finance Corp.) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer (response due August 10, 2026) |
|
Siegel v. Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC, No. 26-cv-05183 (S.D.N.Y) |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Section 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) |
Investment adviser (Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer (response due August 21, 2026); pre-motion conference scheduled for September 10, 2026 |
|
Allen v. Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC, No. 1:26-cv-02883 |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Section 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) |
Investment adviser (Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC); individual officers and directors |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer |
|
Cefaratti v. Ostrover, No. 26-cv-05151 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; waste of corporate assets |
Individual officers and directors; BDC as nominal defendant (Blue Owl Capital Corporation II) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; Consolidated with Muniz on July 29, 2026 |
|
Burnell v. BlackRock TCP Capital Corp., No. 2:26-cv-1102 (C.D. Cal.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 |
BDC (BlackRock TCP Capital Corp.); individual officers |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; Lead plaintiff and counsel appointed June 10, 2026; lead plaintiffs’ amended complaint due August 24, 2026 |
|
In re Blackrock TCP Capital Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. 2:26-cv-01968 (C.D. Cal.) |
Violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; abuse of control; gross mismanagement; waste of corporate assets |
BDC as nominal defendant (BlackRock TCP Capital Corp.); individual officers and directors |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; Lead plaintiff and counsel appointed June 29, 2026; parties stipulated to stay case pending outcome of Burnell |
|
Vinther v. Tennenbaum Capital Partners LLC, No. TC26-E965138998 (LA County Superior Court) |
Common law breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment |
BDC as nominal defendant (BlackRock TCP Capital Corp.); Investment manager (Tennenbaum Capital Partners LLC); individual officers and directors |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer |
|
Hunter v. Hercules Capital, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-2465 (N.D. Cal.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 |
BDC (Hercules Capital, Inc.); individual officers |
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 22, 2026 |
|
In re Hercules Capital, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-03213 (N.D. Cal.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duty; gross mismanagement; unjust enrichment; abuse of control; waste of corporate assets |
BDC as nominal defendant (Hercules Capital, Inc.); individual directors and officers |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; stayed until resolution of Hunter |
|
Stuart v. FS KKR Capital Corp., No. 26-cv-02969 (E.D. Pa.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 |
BDC (FS KKR Capital Corp.); individual officers |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; lead plaintiffs’ counsel appointed and all related cases consolidated on July 22, 2026; consolidated/amended complaint due August 4, 2026 |
|
Goodman v. Forman, No. 26-cv-03240 (E.D. Pa.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duty; gross mismanagement; waste of corporate assets; unjust enrichment; abuse of control |
Individual officers and directors, BDC as nominal defendant (FS KKR Capital) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; parties stipulated to stay case pending Stuart |
|
Jones v. FS/KKR Advisor LLC, No. 1:26-cv-02593 (D. Md.) |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Section 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) |
Investment adviser (FS KKR Advisor, LLC); BDC as nominal defendant (FS KKR Capital Corp.) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer |
|
Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. FS/KKR Advisor LLC, No. 1:26-cv-06003 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Section 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) |
Investment adviser (FS KKR Advisor, LLC) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer (response due August 6, 2026) |
|
Siegel v. Ares Capital Management LLC, No. 26-cv-04371 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Section 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive fees) and 47(b) (recission of advisory agreement) |
Investment adviser (Ares Capital Management, LLC) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; motion to dismiss filed on July 27, 2026 |
This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Matthew W. Close, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; Pamela A. Miller, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Jennifer Taylor, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; Meaghan VerGow, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and New York; Glen K. Lim, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California and New York; Lauren M. Wagner, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Craig McAllister, an O’Melveny counsel licensed to practice law in New York; and William David Pollak, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California and New York, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.
© 2026 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.