Guide to Recent Private Credit-Related Litigation
November 10, 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 and fee-challenge claims are the two dominant trends — 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, and Section Investment Company Act 36(b) fee-challenge suits have grown to match that volume, now spanning multiple fund families.
- Investment adviser fee challenges are accelerating — 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.
- Nearly all active cases are in early stages — The vast majority of cases remain at the pre-motion to dismiss stage, though certain matters have been voluntarily dismissed, and others have begun motion-to-dismiss briefing.
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 Update: Defenses in Investment Company Act Cases
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) |
|
Baker v. Ostrover, No. 1:26-cv-08851 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violations of Sections 10(b), and 20(a) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; waste of corporate assets |
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; lead plaintiff appointed on August 7, 2026; amended complaint filed on October 28, 2026; responses due on January 29, 2027 |
|
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; amended complaint filed on October 2, 2026; motion to dismiss filed on November 6, 2026 Parties ordered to file a stipulation, or status letter with a proposed order, regarding consolidation of Delman, Ataii, Siegel, and Allen, plaintiffs’ counsel leadership, and any relevant deadlines |
|
Ataii v. Blue Owl Credit Advisors LLC, No. 26-cv-6938 (S.D.N.Y) |
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.) |
Consolidated with Siegel and Allen under Case No. 26-cv-05183 |
|
In re Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors Investment Company Act Litigation, 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; consolidated with Ataii and Allen; parties ordered to meet and confer to propose schedule for filing consolidated complaint Scheduling conference to be held December 4, 2026 |
|
Allen v. Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07153 (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); individual officers and directors |
Consolidated with Siegel and Ataii under Case No. 26-cv-05183 |
|
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; case stayed on July 31, 2026 Letter filed by plaintiffs in Muniz, Cefaratti, and Baker on October 28, 2026, opposing consolidation of Baker with Muniz and Cefaratti |
|
In re Blackrock TCP Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, 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 |
Lead plaintiff and counsel appointed June 10, 2026; amended complaint filed on August 24, 2026; motion to dismiss filed on October 23, 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; case stayed pending outcome of In re Blackrock TCP Capital Corp. Securities Litigation |
|
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; designated as related case to Graham, Vinther as lead case; case stayed until initial status conference scheduled for November 30, 2026 |
|
Graham v. Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC, No. 26STCV23804 (LA County Superior Court) |
Common law breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment |
BDC as nominal defendant (BlackRock TCP Capital Corp.); individual officers and directors |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; case stayed until initial status conference scheduled for November 30, 2026 |
|
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 |
Parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice on August 10, 2026 (court approved August 11, 2026) |
|
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; amended complaint filed on September 28, 2026; response due on December 2, 2026 |
|
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; defendant filed motion to transfer case to SDNY on September 22, 2026; plaintiff opposed on October 20, 2026 |
|
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) |
Motion to dismiss filed on September 14, 2026; opposition filed September 28, 2026; reply filed on October 5, 2026 On October 7, 2026, plaintiff in Jones filed a motion to intervene and for a stay under the “first-filed” rule, arguing the claims are duplicative of those in Jones. |
|
Bruno v. Forman, No. 2:26-cv-06159 (E.D. Pa.) |
Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; abuse of control; gross mismanagement; waste of corporate assets; contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act |
Individual officers and directors; BDC as nominal defendant (FS KKR Capital Corp.) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; consolidated with Goodman; stayed pending Stuart |
|
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; consolidated with Bruno; stayed pending Stuart |
|
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) |
Motion to dismiss filed on July 27, 2026; amended complaint filed on September 22, 2026; consolidated with Simons; response to amended complaint due on December 15, 2026 |
|
Simons v. Ares Capital Management LLC, No. 1:26-cv-08177 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Violation of Investment Company Act of 1940 Section 36(b) (breach of fiduciary duty/excessive advisory fees) |
Investment adviser (Ares Capital Management, LLC); BDC as nominal defendant (Ares Capital Corporation) |
Pre-motion to dismiss/answer; consolidated with Siegel; response to amended complaint due on December 15, 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.