A large amount of time negotiating PE fund terms centers on the balance of power between GPs and LPs, with the latter frequently pushing for more checks and balances on the former’s authority to operate a fund with minimal oversight. MJ Hudson’s newly issued report (Report) reviewed the state of that dynamic based on the terms of PE and venture capital funds that went to market or raised capital in 2019. Those insights are valuable for benchmarking the recent arc of the PE industry as it continues to evolve post-pandemic. This second article in a two-part series sets forth the Report’s findings on fund governance terms, including GP removal provisions; change of control provisions; key person events; most favored nation clauses; investor participation and consents; and transparency. The first article explored the Report’s coverage of fund terms impacting alignment of interests between GPs and LPs, including GP commitments, management fee offsets, successor funds and co‑investments. See “ILPA Issues ‘Principles 3.0’: Fund Governance and Disclosures (Part Two of Two)” (Aug. 6, 2019).