The firm made the change following conversations with “significant institutional investors”. The group proposed in June a dual share class structure, where 30% of the share capital would be structured as “realisation shares”, with the aim of returning capital at near par over an eight-year period.

It capped its realisation share class at 30% of the trust’s total shares in order to keep the fund large enough to operate efficiently, with an option to re-evaluate the proposal if more than half of its investors decided to enter the realisation shares. Shareholders were given a deadline of 30 September to decide whether they want to opt for the realisation share class or stick with the current investment strategy.

The dual-class structure will proceed as planned if 40% or fewer vote for the realisation option, but if more opt for realisation shares, the board will trigger a managed wind-down alternative, with the portfolio liquidated and cash returned to all shareholders pro rata.

Peter McKellar, chairman of Partners Group Private Equity, said: “Following careful consideration of the options available to the Company, the Board believes that the proposed dual share class structure provides a practical and effective way to address the differing priorities within our shareholder base.

“The reorganisation proposal is designed to give Shareholders a clear choice. Those seeking liquidity will have a defined path to realise value from their investment in an orderly manner, while those who wish to remain invested will continue to benefit from exposure to the portfolio’s long-term growth potential and attractive income profile.

“However, if elections for realisation shares reach more than 40% of the company’s ordinary shares, there is a real risk that the company would become unsuitable, given its resultant scale and liquidity, for continuing investors, and the board will not proceed with the reorganisation proposal. Instead, the board will commence an orderly realisation of the entire investment portfolio. The board believes this would be in the best interests of shareholders as a whole.”