NextFin News - The two executives now steering Cinven, one of Europe's largest private equity firms, are closing the book on a bruising period of leadership upheaval and regulatory scrutiny, signalling that the firm's priority is to get back to deploying capital and returning money to investors. Bruno Schick and Jorge Quemada, who remain as co-managing partners after the sudden departure of two senior colleagues in December 2025, have framed the episode as a mis-step the firm must learn from and move beyond.
The message carries weight because of the numbers behind it. Cinven said it has delivered roughly €12 billion of realisations since January 2024 while investing more than €6 billion into new businesses — a deployment and return rhythm that held even as the firm restructured its top team and navigated a high-profile UK competition case that reached the Court of Appeal. The co-heads' argument is that the investment engine never stalled, and that the firm's task now is to keep it running.
The leadership shock and the regulatory backdrop
The turbulence began in December 2025, when Cinven announced that Supraj Rajagopalan, a co-managing partner who ran the firm's day-to-day operations as chief executive, and Alex Leslie, the chief operating and financial officer, would step down and leave the firm. The departures came as the UK Competition and Markets Authority was weighing whether to ask a court to bar Rajagopalan from running companies in connection with a long-running investigation into excessive pricing of a thyroid drug sold to the National Health Service.
The case traces to liothyronine tablets, an essential medicine used to treat thyroid hormone deficiency. In May 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the competition regulator's finding of excessive and unfair pricing in the supply of the drug between 2009 and 2017, reinstating a penalty of £51.9 million on Cinven. The drugmaker at the centre of the case, now known as Advanz Pharma, was assembled from Mercury Pharma and Amdipharm, which Cinven bought and brought together in 2012. NHS annual spending on the medicine jumped from more than £2.3 million in 2009 to more than £30 million by 2016, after the price per box rose from £20 to £248 — an increase of more than 1,110% that the regulator said was not justified by innovation or investment.
"I don't know how it leaked but the leak converts you from being innocent until proven guilty to being guilty until proven innocent," Rajagopalan said in August 2026, his first public comments since resigning.
On 29 July, the regulator confirmed it had closed its enquiries into Rajagopalan and his former colleague with no action taken, and said it would pursue a disqualification order only against John Beighton, the former chief executive of the drug manufacturer. The regulator said Beighton led the companies responsible for the sale of liothyronine tablets for more than half of the infringement period.
For Cinven's remaining co-heads, the episode encapsulates the kind of mis-step they now want behind them: a legacy investment decision, made years earlier, that generated reputational and personal risk far beyond the financial penalty. The £51.9 million figure, while material, was not the main cost. The disruption to the firm's leadership, the uncertainty for investors, and the personal exposure of its most senior executives were the heavier burdens.
Stabilising the firm without triggering a crisis
Cinven's response was to consolidate leadership around Schick and Quemada while promoting from within. Alexandra Hess was appointed president, adding responsibility for strategic initiatives to her investor relations role; Maxim Crewe became head of countries and sectors; and Mike Colato, a former CFO serving as senior adviser, returned as interim chief operating and financial officer. The investment committee was widened: Quemada remains its chair, with Schick, Pontus Pettersson and Thomas Railhac moving from the bench to become permanent members alongside David Barker. Stuart McAlpine, who led the firm for nearly nine years before handing over in 2024, moved to chairman emeritus.
Notably, no key-person clause was triggered by the departures — a meaningful signal to limited partners that the firm's governance structure had absorbed the shock without forcing a pause in investment activity or a return of capital. The co-managing partners said the changes "demonstrate the depth of our established leadership bench" and came "at a time of strong momentum for Cinven."
The division of labour between the two remaining leaders is now clear. Schick, who joined Cinven in 2003, leads portfolio, value creation and exit activities and chairs the portfolio review committee. Quemada, a former 3i partner who joined in 2011, leads investment activity and chairs the investment committee. Together they hold final responsibility for the firm's strategic direction, with Schick overseeing exits and portfolio performance and Quemada steering new deal flow.
The scale of the organisation they now run has changed dramatically from the firm their predecessors built. Under McAlpine's leadership, assets under management grew from €11 billion to €44 billion, employee numbers more than doubled to 260, and the firm opened offices across Frankfurt, Guernsey, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Milan, New York and Paris. The succession to three equal co-managing partners in 2024 — Schick, Quemada and Rajagopalan — was itself a response to that growth, reflecting a fund eight that raised $14.5 billion. Now, with one of the three gone, the remaining pair must run a larger, more complex firm with a leaner top team.
Why 'moving on' is easier said than done for private equity
The Cinven episode is not simply a story of one firm's bad luck. It illustrates a structural shift in how private equity is held to account, and that shift is not going to reverse. Regulators in the UK and Europe have increasingly applied the principle of parental liability — treating the buyout owner as responsible for the conduct of portfolio companies even years after a sale. The liothyronine penalty was imposed on Cinven on that basis, even though the firm argued it did not break the law and was not directly involved in pricing decisions. The Competition Appeal Tribunal reduced Cinven's penalty from £51.9 million to £37.1 million in 2023, only for the Court of Appeal to reinstate the full amount two years later.
That creates a new category of risk for private equity executives: personal disqualification. The prospect that a regulator could seek to bar an individual from holding company directorships turns a corporate compliance matter into a career-ending event. Rajagopalan's resignation, and his later description of being treated as "guilty until proven innocent," captures the asymmetry. The financial penalty can be appealed and quantified; the reputational damage arrives immediately and is harder to reverse.
For Cinven's co-heads, the lesson is operational as much as legal. Due diligence on a target's pricing practices, regulatory history and governance can no longer be a box-ticking exercise; it must be treated as a valuation input. A business that looks cheap because its margins rest on aggressive pricing in a captive market may carry a latent liability that surfaces years later, under a different owner, with the original sponsor still on the hook. The liothyronine case is the textbook example: the pricing conduct occurred between 2009 and 2017, the regulator's infringement decision came in 2021, and the penalty was only finally settled in 2025 — long after Cinven had assembled the asset.
The cyclical and the structural: separating the two
It matters to distinguish what is cyclical from what is structural in Cinven's current position, because the two demand different responses. The leadership departures and the regulatory overhang are, in important respects, cyclical and episodic. The regulator closed its enquiry into Rajagopalan with no action. No key-person clause was triggered. The firm's realisation and deployment numbers — €12 billion returned and more than €6 billion invested since January 2024 — show the investment engine kept running through the disruption. These are mean-reverting pressures: once the regulatory cloud lifts and the leadership team beds in, the firm's access to capital markets and its deal flow can normalise.
There is evidence the firm has already begun that normalisation. Cinven's funds have distributed close to 30% of net asset value over the past year, compared with an industry average of 11% of NAV in 2024, according to the firm. Since January 2024 the funds have closed five strategic exits, achieving a weighted average multiple on invested capital of nearly 3 times. In a market where sponsor exits have lagged deployments, that is a meaningful outperformance — and it gives the co-heads a platform to argue that execution, not distraction, is the story.
But the accountability regime is structural. Parental liability, personal disqualification risk, and intensified scrutiny of private equity ownership of essential goods are regime changes, not a passing cycle. They will not self-correct. That means every European buyout firm now prices regulatory and reputational risk differently than it did a decade ago — and firms that fail to adjust their diligence and governance will face repeated mis-steps, not one-offs.
The second-order implication is that the cost of capital for private equity-owned assets in sensitive sectors — healthcare, utilities, essential consumer goods — embeds a regulatory risk premium that did not exist before. Limited partners will increasingly ask not just about a fund's track record, but about its compliance infrastructure and the personal exposure of its partners. That is a change in the economics of the asset class, not a temporary headwind. For a firm like Cinven, whose portfolio spans healthcare assets such as STADA and pharmaceutical distribution alongside consumer, industrials and technology businesses, the compliance burden is not confined to one deal team — it is a firm-wide capability that must be resourced and audited.
What would prove the 'move on' thesis wrong
The strongest counter-thesis to Cinven's forward-looking stance is that the firm's troubles are not behind it but merely paused. If the competition regulator's action against Beighton produces further findings that implicate Cinven's historical conduct, or if additional portfolio companies face similar pricing investigations, the "mis-step" framing would look like an understatement. A specific falsifying signal: if the High Court's disqualification proceedings against Beighton uncover evidence that Cinven's own governance or oversight was implicated in the pricing strategy — rather than the conduct being confined to the drugmaker's management — the firm's claim of having moved on would be materially weakened.
There is also a market-level counter-argument. European private equity faces a difficult exit environment, elevated financing costs and intense competition for deals. Even a fully stabilised Cinven must deploy and realise capital in conditions that are structurally harder than the ones in which its €44 billion of assets under management were built. The firm's AUM grew from €11 billion to €44 billion under its previous leadership; replicating that trajectory in the current cycle is a different challenge. Fund eight, at $14.5 billion, was raised into a market that has since tightened, and the firm will need to show it can generate returns on that capital at multiples that justify the risk premium LPs now demand.
The peer comparison cuts both ways. Cinven's distribution rate of close to 30% of NAV versus an industry average of 11% shows outperformance on exits. But the same metric reveals the pressure on the rest of the industry: if most sponsors cannot exit, asset values on paper may not translate into cash returns. Cinven's ability to keep selling — five strategic exits at nearly 3x MOIC since January 2024 — is a competitive advantage only if it can be sustained across a full cycle, not just in a window where strategic buyers are active.
What to watch next
In the short term, the signals to watch are governance and personnel: whether the interim CFO/COO role is made permanent, whether further senior departures follow, and whether the widened investment committee produces a steady cadence of decisions rather than caution. Cinven's own benchmark is its deployment and realisation rhythm — the more than €6 billion invested and roughly €12 billion realised since January 2024 set the bar the new leadership must sustain.
Medium term, the test is deal flow and exits: whether Cinven can complete large buyouts and realise positions at attractive valuations in a market where many peers are stuck holding assets. The firm's sector and country matrix — a longstanding differentiator that Crewe now oversees — will be tested by whether it can source proprietary deals in a competitive market while maintaining discipline on price.
Long term, the structural question is whether the firm's diligence and governance upgrades actually reduce regulatory risk, or whether the next mis-step comes from a different portfolio company in a different sector. The liothyronine case was a healthcare asset; the next test could come from utilities, consumer staples, or any business where Cinven's ownership gives it pricing influence over essential goods. The co-heads' job is to make sure the firm's compliance function is not just reactive to the last crisis but anticipatory of the next one.
For Schick and Quemada, "let's move on" is both a management message and a market signal. The firm has survived a leadership crisis without triggering its key-person protections, and the regulatory enquiry into its former chief executive has closed without action. But the private equity industry's era of light-touch accountability for portfolio-company conduct is over, and the co-heads know that the next mis-step will be judged against the standard they set now. The line has been drawn; the test is whether the firm can keep it from being crossed again.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
