As we begin 2025, I would like to extend my best wishes for a happy and prosperous year ahead. I also want to provide you with an update on Langham Hall and share our expectations for the upcoming year, which we hope will bring a more optimistic outlook.

‍

The fundraising environment remained challenging across all asset classes in 2024. However, as interest rates began to decline, we saw a rebound in M&A and secondary market activity, marking the start of the slow process of repatriating capital to investors. While we anticipate the first half of this year will remain challenging, we are beginning to see some funds successfully raising capital, and momentum is building, with new high quality fund management businesses entering the market. The extended recovery period has had a negative impact on mid-market asset managers in all asset classes, as higher-than-expected interest rates – alongside declining returns due to difficulties in exiting assets – has led to a struggle for some to raise further capital.

‍

Against this backdrop, the growing sense that inflation may persist in the medium term has led to an interest in high-quality, income-generating real assets. On the private equity side, businesses that started during the pandemic, particularly in areas such as technology and healthcare, are now emerging as attractive targets for lower mid-market managers spinning out from the old mid-market platforms. While investors remain committed to the major, multi-disciplined managers, there is also significant interest in supporting smaller managers, especially to avoid missing out on the latest market trends. This is especially evident in the US, but also in the UK, where the greatest percentage of Europe’s tech start-ups are based in order to access capital. US general partners (GPs) are responding to this by increasing their presence in London to compete in Europe for the best deals for their US funds. This augments their fundraising efforts in the EU as they continue the diversification of their LP bases through pre-marketing under AIFMD.

‍

A key initiative at Langham Hall continues to be our Wolfram computable data strategy. All our jurisdictions are now focusing on transitioning remaining clients to this platform, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Comments such as, “Four years of dashboard presentations from the market and this was the best presentation and most tailored tool for what we need” reflect the success of this initiative. To recap, our strategy represents a significant leap ahead of traditional GL-based systems by enabling the interrogation of a flexible yet hierarchical data repository containing both financial and non-financial data. This enhances the speed and flexibility of all management and performance reporting and streamlines the handling of side letters and miscellaneous investor reporting, all within a single strategy.

‍

Despite the challenges, Langham Hall achieved double digit growth in the past year. We focused heavily on strengthening the foundations of our professional services. A significant amount of time was spent by our senior team ensuring alignment in our approach to client work and in accelerating the development of talent within our client teams. As an independent business, our clients and teams remain our top priorities.

‍

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all our clients, colleagues and advisors for your continued loyalty and support.

‍

Best wishes,

‍

Rob Short
Managing Partner

Langham Hall is delighted to announce the appointment of two senior hires in Luxembourg. Ian Kent joins as Head of Fund Administration – Luxembourg and Brian Campion as Head of Commercial – Luxembourg. Both have extensive experience in alternative assets and will help us continue to deliver best-in-class service to top tier fund managers.

‍

Ian Kent | Head of Fund Administration – Luxembourg

‍

Ian has 20 years’ experience in the alternative investment sector in Luxembourg, both with investment managers and service providers. He has spent time at KPMG, Morgan Stanley and Abrdn, before working at a global bank where he serviced clients with complex cross-jurisdictional structures. Ian is a Fellow Chartered Accountant (“FCA”).

Ian leads our Luxembourg fund administration practice across all illiquid asset classes.

‍

Brian Campion | Head of Commercial – Luxembourg

‍

Brian started his career as an Auditor at EY Luxembourg, before working for an independent AIFM. He joins Langham Hall from another independent service provider, where he advised clients on Luxembourg operating models and regulatory frameworks. Brian is also the Co-Chair of the LPEA Promotion Sounding Board.

‍

Brian leads the Luxembourg commercial team, which is responsible for advising and working with clients during the setup and initial operation of funds in Luxembourg.

‍

Maria Thorsted - Head of Luxembourg said: “Both Ian and Brian bring a wealth of professional services experience to Langham Hall, which will help us continue to deliver best-in-class service to our clients”

‍

Tom Pinnell - Head of Commercial - Europe said: “Brian’s Big 4 background makes him a perfect fit for Langham Hall. He is able to really problem solve technical issues with clients at a deeper level than most and I look forward to working with him”.

‍

As we approach the end of the year, sharing some possibly topical experience of issues arising at the end of fund life.

‍

Fund Life Cycle Update

‍

In ideal circumstances, after the final distribution the partnership prepares a final balance sheet showing no assets or liabilities and applies for a winding up. Procedures in the Cayman Islands typically take a few weeks. The corporate GP is typically also wound up after the fund to preclude further liabilities.

‍

Recent Developments

‍

Funds may reach the end of their expected life before all of the portfolio investments have been divested. These may be in different stages of divestment, including listed securities post-IPO, either in a lock-up period or experiencing shallow market liquidity, performing portfolio companies with delayed exit negotiations, and written down/written off portfolio companies in insolvency or other legal proceedings. Other asset may be distributable cash is held in reserve against tax or warranty liabilities.

‍

Implications for the Fund

‍

Cayman limited partnerships remain extant and in good standing past the final term of the LPA, but the efficacy of LPA clauses becomes uncertain. It is well accepted that the distribution waterfall continues to operate as the only route for distributable cash to leave the partnership. It is less clear whether LPs are obliged to make further capital calls to fund fees and expenses. Management fees are a matter of negotiation and practically are likely payable out of arising distributable cash.

‍

Options for GPs

‍

GPs have considered a number of options including the following. Continuation funds are still rather rare considering the number of PE funds reaching end-of-life in the present market. They require a strong asset with long-term upside potential and preferably ‘evergreen’ cashflow prospects. Fundraising is presently challenging even for the best opportunities. Distributions in kind are more common than continuation funds. Listed assets are straightforward in principle but in practice there are complications. LPs have different needs; some would prefer to receive the securities rather than sell at fire-sale prices, while others just prefer to draw a line under the investment and insist that the GP dispose on their behalf. There are significant price fluctuations around the distribution date which may move a fund in or out of the carry. Also, LPs may end up booking the securities at a price much lower than the distribution valuation. Fund life extensions may be sought through the LPAC. A clear plan will certainly be needed explaining the route to disposition for each asset. Management fees are to be negotiated, but LPs recognize that GPs need to be resourced to work the asset, especially for funds where carry is unlikely.

‍

Dormant Final Years

‍

Sometimes the realistic business case is to just wait-and-see, especially in the case of liability reserves. Funds may ramp down costs by streamlining investor reporting to just capital accounts and audited financial statements during this period.

‍

Other Considerations

‍

Strategies for maximizing the fund IRR and fund multiple may have some conflict – the central issue is whether it makes sense to delay exists for the sake of seeking a better exit price. Different portfolio investments may have dramatically different prospects. Discussions with LP on the “old fund” may be getting in the way of marketing a new fund. The balance between driving further value versus drawing the line will differ as a result.

‍

There is only space in this newsletter to sketch an outline. Please do reach out if you would like to discuss further.

‍

Fund managers with loan originating strategies, such as private credit funds in the EU (including parallels to a master fund elsewhere) will soon have to abide by a new set of rules on diversification, leverage, etc.

‍

The key restrictions introduced by the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive II (AIFMD II) in April 2024 include:

• Diversification: Loans are capped at 20% to single borrowers who are Alternative Investment Funds, UCITS or other financial undertakings, such as credit institutions, financial institutions and ancillary banking service undertakings
• Retention of economic interest: A minimum of 5% of the loan’s nominal value for two years from the date of agreement or until the loan’s maturity, whichever comes first must be retained
• Administrative cost: Administrative costs need to be disclosed to investors in the pre-contractual disclosures. Administrative costs are origination fees, servicing fees, legal and compliance costs, monitoring and reporting costs, and collection costs
• Leverage: The leverage restriction for open-ended funds is 175% of the fund’s net asset value (‘NAV’) and 300% for closed-ended funds

Is your fund in scope of the AIFMD II rules on Loan Origination?

‍

Loan originating funds are those with a principal investment strategy of originating loans, or those where the notional value of loans accounts for more than 50% of the NAV. However, many of the restrictions that we address below also apply to any EU funds that originate loans, regardless of their principal strategy or notional value of loans.

‍

How is AIFMD leverage determined? How is this different to commercial leverage?

‍

The leverage restriction is tested based on the definition provided in Article 8 of the Level 2 AIFM Regulation: “Commitment method for calculating the exposure of an AIF.”

‍

Exposure in a fund is a measure of the total risk the fund is taking on. To calculate this, you add up the total value of all the fund’s positions, which include investments, loans, and other financial commitments. This total is then divided by the fund’s net asset value (NAV). When calculating the total value, you consider the absolute value of each position, meaning you look at the total amount without considering whether it’s positive or negative.

‍

There are some exceptions as to what counts towards exposure. For example, temporary borrowing arrangements, such as short-term loans that are fully secured by undrawn capital commitments, are excluded. Additionally, certain netting and hedging strategies that offset risks can reduce the overall exposure.

‍

Enforcement timeline – Transition rules for Loan Origination funds under AIFMD II

‍

Funds constituted before 15th April 2024 have until 16th April 2029 to comply with the following:

• 20% single borrower limit within 24 (and exceptionally additional 12) months from the date of the first subscription*
• Open-ended funds can only be those that can prove that their liquidity risk management is compatible with their investment strategy and redemption policy. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) intends to issue guidelines in April 2025

Funds constituted before 15th April 2024 that finished fundraising by this date have been grandfathered in terms of the above.

‍

All funds that originated loans before 15th April 2024, are exempt from the following (in respect to those loans):

• Restrictions on borrowing entities
• Originate-to-distribute restriction
• Full allocation of loan proceeds minus allowable (administration) fees to the fund
• Retention of 5% of the notional value of each loan that is originated and subsequently transferred to third parties

Moratorium until 16th April 2029 on:

• Increasing notional value of loans originated to a single borrower if this value is above the limit (20%). Where the value is less than 20%, it may be increased up to the limit
• Increasing the leverage if above the limit (175% for open-ended and 300% for closed-ended). Where the value is below this limit, it may be increased up to the limit. Funds originating only shareholder loans provided that the notional value of the loans does not exceed in aggregate 150% of the capital are exempt from this requirement

Practical implications of AIFMD II on Loan Originating funds

‍

AIFMD II will impose stricter rules on drafting fund documentation for non-EU master structures, with EU regulations impacting the fund’s investment strategy (single borrower limit) and the use of exposure-increasing instruments such as repurchasing agreements (AIFMD leverage restriction). Non-EU master structures may have to revise existing fund documentation, which could consequently need the approval of the advisory committee.

‍

Parallel funds looking to raise money in Luxembourg will also need to ensure compliance with these new regulations. This may involve updating their documentation and obtaining necessary approvals to align with AIFMD II requirements.

‍

AIFMD II is yet to be transposed in the member states. Most countries, including Luxembourg, are expected to enact the changes by 2026. Around the same time, ESMA will be due to issue the technical standards detailing the implementation of AIFMD II.

‍

_{* Provision applies to all funds originating loans.}

Amendments to the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, referred to as AIFMD II, took effect on 15 April 2024. EU members states are required to adopt these rules within two years. While Jersey and Guernsey will need to assume any applicable changes to their own regimes, the expected impact on Jersey and Guernsey alternative investment fund managers (‘AIFMs’) and alternative investment funds (‘AIFs’) is anticipated to be significantly less than on EU AIFMs and AIFs.

‍

Jersey and Guernsey have never been EU member states, and accordingly all Jersey and Guernsey domiciled AIFMs and AIFs are classified as ‘third country’. As a result, the Channel Islands has become a popular choice for managers looking to attract European capital from professional investors via the National Private Placement Regime (‘NPPR’), but without the cost or operational implications of an EU-domiciled structure.

‍

Key changes in AIFMD II for fund managers

‍

Earlier this year, we outlined practical implications of AIFMD II for EU and non-EU managers in our briefing note, concluding that most of the proposed amendments would not affect non-EU AIFMs or AIFs (such as those based in the Channel Islands), with the primary focus being on EU AIFMs, including, but not limited to, EU AIFs participating in loan origination (loan originating funds) and open-ended EU AIFs, as well as on liquidity management tools and enabling the appointment of a depositary outside of the EU AIF’s home domicile. The material amendments that will be most strongly felt by EU AIFMs and AIFs relate to those involved in loan origination, by enforcing regulation where there previously was a lack of consistency across Europe in areas such as policies & procedures, diversification, and conflict and risk management.

‍

AIFMD II – impact on Jersey and Guernsey’s alternative investment funds?

‍

The amendments expected to impact Jersey and Guernsey AIFs primarily relate to increased reporting obligations and disclosures under Annex IV reporting – the regulatory requirement triggered by formally marketing a non-EU fund in EU states. As a result of AIFMD II, managers must adhere to additional disclosure requirements for investors to whom a product is marketed, as well as ongoing disclosures after commitments are subscribed, covering areas such as:

• fees and expenses that are borne by the AIFM and are directly, or indirectly, allocated to the AIF
• the circumstances in which the AIF may use leverage, including the types, sources, associated risks and restrictions of such leverage
• liquidity risk management and redemption rights of any such redemption arrangements
• the composition of the originated loan portfolio
• any parent undertaking, subsidiary or special purpose vehicle utilised in relation to the AIF’s investments

Additionally, AIFMD II introduces changes to the reporting requirements by non-EU Managers and products to their home authorities – the Jersey and Guernsey Financial Services Commissions.

‍

It’s important to note that while there are amendments directly applicable to Jersey and Guernsey as third country jurisdictions, the impact is expected to be minimal. For example, conditions for marketing a non-EU AIF under NPPR require that the domicile must not be classified as a “high risk” third country under European anti-money laundering legislation – something that neither Jersey nor Guernsey has ever been and is unlikely to be in future. Additionally, the domicile must have an effective exchange of tax information, which both already achieve through multiple tax information exchange agreements that align with international standards and adhere to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development model agreement.

‍

Benefits of setting up a fund in the Channel Islands post-AIFMD II

‍

The choice between registering a non-EU AIF under NPPR and establishing an EU fund which avails of the marketing passport is often a discussion we have with clients, each presenting their own advantages and disadvantages. While we see a growing trend of non-EU fund managers setting up parallel funds in Luxembourg, marketing via NPRR is still a common route to raise capital in Europe for many managers. This approach allows non-EU managers to reduce the operational and regulatory requirements of AIFMD, along with the associated costs of an EU domiciled investment vehicle. We anticipate that the new directive will strengthen the attractiveness of Jersey and Guernsey as fund domiciles for sponsors globally, irrespective of their European fundraising strategy, as already flexible jurisdictions that offers fast-track and cost-effective products.

‍

We are working with several sponsors to operate and market both non-EU and EU AIFs, and always welcome the opportunity to discuss the differences between a fund registered under NPPR vs an EU domiciled fund. If you would like to find out more or are interested in how we assist our clients with fundraising in Europe and ensuring regulatory compliance, please feel free to contact us.

Langham Hall is delighted to have supported Hypha with the launch of their inaugural private equity fund, Hypha I LP, which is targeting commitments of £100m. The fund will make investments in founder-owned businesses in the UK and Ireland, with a focus on the healthcare, technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. The fund has so far secured over £70m in commitments from global institutional investors.

‍

Langham Hall has been selected to provide fund administration and appointed representative services from our London office.

‍

Commenting on the launch, Founding Partner Matthew Pomroy said “Langham Hall has been an excellent partner to us as we launch this new business. Their advice and handholding throughout our setup was invaluable, and they have delivered on their promises throughout.”

‍

Head of Commercial, Tom Pinnell commented “As one of the leading fund administrators for spin-out and startup managers, we have thoroughly enjoyed going on the journey with Hypha as they launch Fund I, and we look forward to seeing their success in years to come.”

‍

‍

About Hypha

‍

Hypha is a UK private equity fund founded in 2024, investing in businesses across three core sectors of technology, healthcare and advanced manufacturing. It supports founder-owned businesses to grow into significant players in their market, partnering with teams that can benefit from experienced, supportive investors. Hypha do the simple things well, helping to put the structures in place to support accelerated growth. Hypha can invest in buyout or growth capital transactions into companies generating positive EBITDA, with the ability to take minority and majority shareholdings.

‍

Langham Hall is pleased to announce its role as the fund administrator for Phoenix Equity Partners’ latest flagship private equity fund and the newly launched Growth Partnership Fund. Phoenix has successfully secured over £600 million in new commitments, with £400 million allocated to the flagship fund and an additional £200 million dedicated to the Growth Partnership Fund.

‍

Phoenix’s flagship fund will continue its strategy of investing in high-growth, lower mid-market businesses across select sectors in the UK. The Growth Partnership Fund, on the other hand, represents a strategic move to deepen partnerships with two of Phoenix’s high-performing portfolio companies, Nineteen Group and Envisage Dental. Both companies were acquired from Phoenix’s previous flagship fund, demonstrating strong growth and success under Phoenix’s management, with a combined enterprise value now approaching £450 million.

‍

As the fund administrator, Langham Hall worked closely with Phoenix Equity Partners and their legal advisors to ensure the smooth and compliant establishment of both funds. Our team provided comprehensive support throughout the process, from structuring and regulatory approval to the seamless onboarding of investors. The successful closing of these funds is a testament to the strength of the partnership between Phoenix, Langham Hall, and Carey Olsen.

‍

Jon Young, Head of Guernsey said: “We are delighted to have supported Phoenix Equity Partners in the closing of their latest funds. This achievement underscores Phoenix’s continued ability to attract significant investor interest and highlights the strength of Guernsey as a premier jurisdiction for private equity funds. Langham Hall is proud to be a part of Phoenix’s ongoing success and looks forward to supporting their future growth and investment strategies.”

‍

‍

The successful closing of these funds enables Phoenix to continue its focus on backing UK-based businesses and entrepreneurs, reinforcing its position as a leading investor in the lower mid-market. Langham Hall is proud to support Phoenix in their mission to help businesses achieve their growth potential.

‍

Louise Corner, Partner and Chief Operating Officer at Phoenix said: “It’s been a busy year for Phoenix, and the Langham Hall team have gone to great lengths to support the successful closing of our funds. We’re delighted to be supported by such a dedicated and responsive fund administration team and by the professional ecosystem of fund advisers that exists in Guernsey.”

‍

Langham Hall are committed to providing high-quality fund administration services that facilitate efficient fund operations and robust investor relations. Our partnership with Phoenix Equity Partners exemplifies our dedication to supporting innovative investment strategies and our role as a trusted partner in the private equity landscape.

The past few years have seen a marked decline in fundraising, with GPs finding it tougher to raise new capital in light of the wider economic environment. One consequence of this we have seen is that managers are needing to be increasingly innovative with their fund terms to provide more flexibility to investors, with increasing numbers of side letters and complex waterfall models becoming more common.

‍

Carried interest (often known simply as “carry”) represents the share of fund profits that the General Partner (‘GP’) will receive based on the value ultimately realised from the fund’s portfolio. Carry is in essence, a performance fee and is designed to ensure the GP has a meaningful commitment to the fund and is aligned with the interests of the Limited Partners.

‍

The application of the carry concept is governed by the provisions of the Limited Partnership Agreement (‘LPA’), drafted by the fund’s legal counsel, and typically applies a waterfall model to define the order of priority in which profits are distributed between parties. The wording of the carry provision often provides for a degree of subjectivity, and this can present challenges for a GP when implementing in practice.

‍

In this article we look at the practical considerations for first-time GPs when selecting the carried interest mechanics for their fund.

‍

Understanding the waterfall model in Private Equity

‍

The distribution model is often referred to as a “waterfall’ as it defines the order of priority in which distributions are allocated within the context of the overall profit-sharing (or ‘carry’) arrangement. The term waterfall can conjure up images of sizeable and overly complex spreadsheet calculations however understanding the overall objective makes these models much easier to digest and implement in practice.

‍

In a typical waterfall model the GP will be entitled to a portion of fund profits (commonly 20%) but this will be allocated only after the Limited Partners have been returned any outstanding capital plus a ‘preferred’ return. The prioritisation of Limited Partner returns results in the need for a GP catch up before any remaining profits are distributed in line with the overall profit-sharing arrangement (e.g. 20:80 split).

European vs US Waterfall Model: Key Differences

‍

There are two widely accepted applications of the waterfall model, the US (or deal-by-deal) model and the European (or whole fund) model. The concept is similar under both, however the European model considers cumulative contributions and realisation proceeds whilst the US model considers contributions and realisation proceeds specific to each deal. Under the US model there is no offset between “good” and “bad” deals and a mechanism is required to allocate fund level expenses and management fees to each individual deal; tracking investors pro-rata share of each deal is critical. The European model aims to provide the same overall distribution split by the time of the final distribution, however low-return deals towards the end of the fund’s life bring a greater risk of claw-back. It is important for GPs to consider industry standards and Limited Partner expectations when deciding on the preferred approach.

‍

Role of Preferred return in Private Equity

‍

The preferred return (or ‘hurdle’) is a component of the waterfall model which ensures that the Limited Partners receive their share of fund profits in priority to the GP. This offers some protection to the Limited Partners if profits aren’t sufficient to achieve the overall profit-sharing arrangement and ensures they are rewarded as a priority in return for risking their capital. The preferred return is calculated based on capital contributed and typically at a rate of 8% compounding annually from the effective date of contribution.

‍

Practical considerations for carried interest

• Investor-Specific vs. Aggregate Waterfall Application – will the waterfall model be applied on an investor-by-investor basis or aggregated at a fund level? Investor specific side letters are becoming more common place amongst institutional investors and this in addition to excused investor and Family & Friends provisions can make the application of an aggregate model difficult to apply in practice.
• Preferred return – at what point should the preferred return stop accruing? In a European model it is typical for the preferred return to align with the timing of distributions i.e. as outstanding capital contributions are returned the preferred return on those contributions will cease to accrue. The preferred return will then continue to accrue on outstanding contributions until the point where distributions exceed outstanding capital as a whole.
• Subsequent fund closing – on what basis does the preferred return accrue for subsequent investors admitted after the initial close? In the spirit of being fair and equitable, GP’s will typically apply the same approach as capital equalisations; the preferred return is calculated from the date the subsequent investors drawdown would have been due had they been in the fund from the initial close. For the wider investor base the preferred return is typically applied to an investors equalised capital contribution.
• Recycling provisions – how are recycling provisions applied in the calculation of the preferred return? For example, if amounts available for distribution are retained by the fund to cover operating expenses or follow-on investments are these considered to be recycled under the LPA and how do these amounts increase the base for the preferred return calculation? Are preferred return provisions applied in the same way to amounts drawn over and above total commitment where allowed under the LPA? The LPA will clearly detail the funds’ recycling provisions however the impact on distributions and the preferred return is not always explicit.
• Systems – it is important that GPs have a proper technology strategy which is aligned to the calculation of the waterfall. There is a risk with complex calculations that either the manager, or in the case of an outsourced arrangement, the administrator, could make errors which ultimately affect investor returns. Langham Hall uses computable data to mitigate this risk, and allow us to handle complex waterfall calculations throughout the fund lifecycle.

If you are a first time GP wanting to understand the practical implications of an existing or proposed carry model, Langham Hall has a wealth of experience working with our clients and their service providers to define and interpret complex carry provisions and build quantitative models to support decision making.

Pride Month is a, month-long celebration dedicated to the LGBTQ+ community, commemorating their history, struggles, and achievements. The origins of Pride trace back to the United States in 1969, following the Stonewall riots—a series of pivotal protests that ignited the gay liberation movement.

‍

The Stonewall riots began on the 28th June 1969, when the NYPD raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, Manhattan. The raid sparked a series of riots by the LGBTQ+ community, who were fed up with the constant harassment and discrimination they faced. These riots marked a significant turning point, transforming the fight for gay rights into a widespread movement.

‍

In June 1970, the first Pride marches were held in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago to commemorate the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. These marches aimed to continue pushing for the liberation and rights of the LGBTQ+ community. They were a huge success with turn outs of over 3,000 to 5,000 people.

‍

Pride Around the World

‍

Since the success of the Pride Marches in the USA, Pride celebrations have spread globally, with events taking place in various places across all months. These celebrations often include parades, festivals, and educational events, all aimed at promoting LGBTQ+ rights and visibility.

‍

Channel Islands Pride

‍

In the Channel Islands, Pride is celebrated in September.

‍

The creation of Channel Islands Pride was rooted in the fight for same-sex marriage laws. The first Pride event in Jersey took place in 2015, followed by Guernsey in 2016. Since then, the islands have taken turns hosting the event, fostering a sense of community and solidarity. Same sex marriage was then made legal in May 2017 in Guernsey and July 2018 in Jersey.

‍

Channel Islands Pride has grown to become a significant event, featuring parades, performances, and various activities that celebrate diversity and promote equality. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and the importance of standing together in solidarity.

‍

We spoke to some of our colleagues in the Challenge Islands, who form part of the movement for their insight:

‍

Zoe Harris - Langham Hall Guernsey said: “As allies we stand with the LGBTQ+ community, advocating for justice, celebrating love, diversity, and equality. Pride is a great platform for raising awareness about LGBTQ+ rights and a powerful celebration of identity and progress whilst continuing to push for a more equal world. Everyone deserves to feel safe and free to express themselves.”

‍

Colleague - Langham Hall Jersey said: “Pride holds deep significance, carrying an important message for all communities, regardless of gender, political views, sexual orientation, or religion. Pride represents the ongoing fight for peace and love. While the Channel Islands may enjoy certain privileges, we often forget why Pride is still celebrated. We must remember that these privileges are the result of a long and difficult battle. Many countries around the world do not share this same freedom. We are still far from achieving full equality, even here in the Channel Islands. In some parts of the world, simply being who I am could cost me my life or result in imprisonment. In 64 countries, it’s considered a crime. In 12 countries, I could face the death penalty. Meanwhile, only 32 countries have legalised same-sex marriage, and just 4 have banned conversion therapy. So, let’s celebrate the freedom to be ourselves and show the world that love is love. Let’s continue to embrace tolerance, respect, and acceptance for one another.”