Trilantic North America Fund VII Reorients: Moves From Energy to Consumer & Business Services

This strategy reflects several interconnected dynamics shaping the private equity (PE) mid-market environment. Trilantic’s shift away from energy indicates a strategic refocusing: by spinning off its energy team into Greenbelt Capital Partners, it separates risk, regulatory exposure, and capital demands associated with energy, particularly amid volatility and transition pressures. This allows Trilantic NA to streamline its core thesis into business services and consumer sectors where deal comparables are more predictable and likely to support higher margins.

Fund VII’s size—a $3 billion target—positions Trilantic as a substantial mid-market buyout player, but not in the mega-fund class. In a fundraising environment that, as of late 2025, favors smaller and mid-sized funds over mega-funds, this choice may enhance appeal to LPs seeking exposure with manageable risk and quicker capital deployment. Indeed, mid-market funds raised $142 billion—or 44 % of global PE commitments over the first nine months of 2025—highlight LP demand in this bracket. [3]

The investment criteria—company values of $100 million to $1.5 billion, equity checks of $100 million to $300 million—are disciplined and denote concentration: a relatively narrow band of investment size geared for scaled control deals. This implies that Trilantic must ensure strong sourcing capability and due diligence precision. Moreover, reliance on relatively low leverage gives flexibility but also suggests tighter returns unless enhanced via operational improvements.

Historical returns indicate that Trilantic’s core non-energy funds have delivered attractive gross IRRs and multiples. The drop from Fund V (2.5×, ~33.4 %) to Fund VI (1.6×, ~30.9 %) in business/consumer segments could reflect entry timing, macroeconomic headwinds, or sector saturation. If Fund VII can replicate or surpass those, given higher fund size and current market volatility—especially with inflation, interest rates, and supply chain disruptions—it must be vigilant in exit timing and cost control.

Broader PE trends suggest both tailwinds and challenges for this strategy. On one hand, U.S. deal value rebounded in 2025, with strong investment in infrastructure and energy transition, sectors that even Trilantic ceded via Greenbelt likely remain robust. On the other hand, fundraising overall is still down globally, exit markets are constrained, and LP interest has shifted toward funds with niche expertise and nimble operations. Trilantic’s emphasis on founder-led, entrepreneur-run mid-market companies aligns well with LP preferences, as does its recognition for founder-friendly practices and performance. [4] The separation of the energy arm might make the main fund more appealing to LPs wary of energy-sector volatility or transition risk.

Strategic implications for some stakeholder groups include: LPs that participated in earlier Trilantic funds should closely watch whether the narrowing strategy and increased fund size affect deployment pace and return dispersion; sponsor/rival funds in the mid-market may face stiffer competition for similarly sized deals in business services and consumer sectors; and exit timing will be critical—deals made during uncertain macro periods need favorable exit windows, likely trade exits or carve-outs rather than IPOs.

Open questions remain. Has Trilantic secured anchor LP interest yet, or what progress toward Fund VII is observable? What leverage levels are feasible in current credit markets for such deal sizes, especially with Fed rates elevated as of 2022? How will Trilantic handle valuation pressure in high multiple businesses—particularly consumer brands affected by inflation and supply chain disruptions? And how much competition will arise from Greenbelt Capital Partners overlaps or collab-opportunities or conflicts, given shared history and inherited relationships?