Because the Advisory Committee is typically meant to be an **advisory/consent body**, not a manager of the fund.
- Its role is usually limited to specific approvals or oversight items
- It does **not** run the fund day to day, control investments, or act as the GP
- Fiduciary duty generally sits with the **GP / fund manager**, who manages LP capital
- Avoiding fiduciary status also helps LPAC members participate without taking on manager-like liability
This is one reason some conflict matters may be moved from the Advisory Committee to a **Majority in Interest of LPs**: broader LP consent is often more appropriate for fund-wide issues than asking a small committee to effectively bind everyone.
Reference:
- https://decilehub.com/base/1-general_questions/163514-why-did-v3-0-move-conflict-of-interest-approval-from-the-advisory-committee-to-a-majority-in-interest-of-lps
- Its role is usually limited to specific approvals or oversight items
- It does **not** run the fund day to day, control investments, or act as the GP
- Fiduciary duty generally sits with the **GP / fund manager**, who manages LP capital
- Avoiding fiduciary status also helps LPAC members participate without taking on manager-like liability
This is one reason some conflict matters may be moved from the Advisory Committee to a **Majority in Interest of LPs**: broader LP consent is often more appropriate for fund-wide issues than asking a small committee to effectively bind everyone.
Reference:
- https://decilehub.com/base/1-general_questions/163514-why-did-v3-0-move-conflict-of-interest-approval-from-the-advisory-committee-to-a-majority-in-interest-of-lps