Does keeping LP capital in a deal past the projected hold period require any kind of formal notice, or is the PPM language usually enough

The PPM language is the legal floor, not the communication standard. What you're describing, a hold extension past projection, is exactly the moment when most experienced IR practitioners would say the communication burden goes up, not down.

On the formal notice question: in most syndication structures, if the PPM gives the GP discretion to extend the hold without an LP vote, there is no separate legal trigger requiring a formal notice beyond whatever the PPM itself specifies. A few PPMs do require written notice to LPs within a set number of days of a material change to the business plan, and a refinancing delay that affects capital return timing would likely qualify as material. Worth pulling your PPM and looking for a "material change" or "business plan amendment" clause, because that is where the answer lives for your specific deal. This is a legal document question, so if you want a definitive read, a securities attorney is the right person to ask.

On what you're actually asking underneath the formal question: you're right that "the PPM allows it" and "we're handling this well" are different things. A five-sentence update that describes conditions without numbers, without a revised timeline, and without any acknowledgment that LPs are past the projected exit is not adequate IR practice, regardless of what the PPM permits. Sponsors who run silent during a rough patch tend to see LP attrition on the next raise. That is a business consequence separate from any legal one.

One thing worth doing now: send the sponsor a written email asking for a current rent roll, the latest DSCR figure, and the revised exit timeline. You are entitled to ask, and their response tells you something about how this relationship is being managed.

What does your PPM say about LP reporting rights, specifically what frequency and what information the GP is required to provide?

"Market conditions remain challenging" is five words of actual content stretched across five sentences, and I've seen that pattern right before a deal goes sideways.

The sponsors I've watched handle extensions well treat the discretionary extension clause as cover for the decision, not cover for the silence, and they over-communicate precisely because they don't need LP approval. What I never see work is the opposite, where the legal latitude becomes the reason to go quiet, because by the time they need goodwill for a second extension or modified terms, it's already spent.

You said prior updates had line items. What changed on their end between month 12 and month 41?