The Cayman Islands Government (CIG) announced on 15 March 2013 its intention to adopt a Model 1 intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in response to the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

 

It was also confirmed by the CIG that a similar arrangement will apply for the automatic exchange of certain information with the United Kingdom.

 

The Model 1 IGA is an agreement between governments for automatic exchange of tax related information. For the Model 1 IGA, relevant financial institutions domiciled in the Cayman Islands will not be required to sign an agreement with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) but instead these financial institutions will be required to report FATCA Information to the CIG, which will then be responsible for communicating this information to the IRS. The alternative Model 2 IGA requires relevant financial institutions to sign up to individual agreements with the IRS and to relay the tax related information directly to the IRS.

 

The decision to adopt a Model 1 IGA is good news for financial institutions, investment funds, structured finance and securitisation vehicles domiciled in the Cayman Islands as it will simplify their FATCA compliance requirements and provided they comply with Cayman Islands law and regulations enacted to implement the Model 1 IGA, they will:

 

  1. be treated as being compliant with FATCA;
  2. not be subject to withholding tax (unless they are opted into the U.S. qualified intermediary regime); and
  3. be considered “registered deemed-compliant” foreign financial institutions.

If you have any questions regarding the matters covered in this publication, please contact the Attorney below or your usual Loeb Smith & Brady contact:

 

Daniel Loeb
+44 207 183 7966
daniel.loeb@loebsmith.com

Share to WeChat

“Scan QR Code” in WeChat and tap ··· to share.

QR Code

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to offshore investment funds with European investors. The Cayman Islands Data Protection Act, 2021 (“DPA”), regulates the processing of all personal data. Inspired by the UK’s Data Protection Act, the DPA includes provisions very similar to GDPR (together “Data Protection Laws”), with certain notable differences.

Even though the DPA applies generally to the processing of personal data and not just to investment funds, within this context and as part of the subscription process, investors are required to provide a government-issued photo ID, source of funds and wealth, contact details, payment details, and tax residence information, or even additional information about employment, dependents, income and investment objectives (the “Investor Personal Data”), which are processed and stored by or on behalf of the investment fund (the “Fund”) and/or by one or more of the service providers to the Fund. Some of the processing may be done by different parties in various jurisdictions.

Within the context of investment funds, the Administrator, Transfer Agent, Distributor, and the Investment Manager of a Fund may fall within the definition of a Data Controller or Data Processor. To ensure compliance with GDPR and/or DPA, the Fund’s Board of Directors should review the contractual arrangements with these parties and may need to appoint a Data Protection Officer. As a reminder, the Board of Directors of the Fund is required to supervise third party service providers and ensure that there are sufficient measures in place to protect Investor Personal Data. Privacy Notices in the Fund’s offering documents would need to be updated to ensure that investors are fully aware of where their Personal Data is being processed, by whom and for what purpose.

For ease of reference, a brief comparison between GDPR and the DPA is included below.

Comparison of the Main Provisions

GDPR DPA
Personal Data Any information relating to an individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, from that data (including online identifiers such as IP addresses and cookies may qualify as personal data if they are capable of being linked back to the individual).  Same as GDPR
Data Controller The person who, alone or with others, determines the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of Personal Data. 

 

DPA applies to any Data Controller in respect of Personal Data (a) established and processed in the Cayman Islands; or (b) processed in the Cayman Islands otherwise than for the purposes of transit .
Privacy Notice  At the time of collection of the data, individuals must be informed of the purposes and detail behind the processing, the details of transfers of data and any security and technical safeguards in place. This information is generally provided in a separate privacy notice. Same as GDPR
Right to Access Individuals have the right to obtain confirmation that their Personal Data is processed and to access it. Data Controllers must respond within a month of the access request. A copy of the information must be provided free of charge. Same as GDPR, but the DPA permits a reasonable fee to be charged.
Retention Period Personal data should not be kept for longer than is necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was originally collected. Controllers must inform data subjects of the period of time (or reasons why) data will be retained on collection. Not a requirement under DPA. However, as with the GDPR, if there is no compelling reason for a Data Controller to retain Personal Data, a data subject can request its secure deletion.

 

Right to Erase Should the individual subsequently wish to have their data removed and the Personal Data is no longer required for the reasons for which it was collected, then it must be erased. Data Controllers must notify third party processors or sub-contractors of such requests. Same as GDPR
Transfers International transfers permitted to third party processors or between members of the same group. Same as GDPR.
Data Security Minimum security measures are prescribed as pseudonymisation and encryption, ability to restore the availability and access to data, regularly testing, assessing and evaluating security measures. Appropriate technical and organisational measures must be taken to prevent unauthorised or unlawful processing of Personal Data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, Personal Data .
Data Processors  Security requirements are extended to data processors as well as Data Controllers There is no liability for processors under the DPA. However, they may be held liable based on contract or tort law.
Data Breach Data Controllers must notify the regulatory authority of Personal Data breaches without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of a breach. In the event of a Personal Data breach, the Data Controller must, “without undue delay” but no longer than five (5) days after the Data Controller should have been aware of that breach, notify the Ombudsman and any affected individuals
Breach Notice The notification should describe the nature of the breach, its consequences, the measures proposed or taken by the Data Controller to address the breach, and the measures recommended by the Data Controller to the individual concerned to mitigate the possible adverse effects of the breach. Same as GDPR.
Right to be Forgotten  An individual may request the deletion or removal of Personal Data where there is no compelling reason for its continued processing. The DPA contains a similar right, although this is expressed as a general right of “erasure”. Under the UK’s Data Protection Act, the right is limited to processing that causes unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. Under the DPA this threshold is not present. As with the GDPR, if there is no compelling reason for a data controller to retain Personal Data, a data subject can request its secure deletion.
Right to Object An individual has the right at any time to require a Data Controller to stop processing their Personal Data for the purposes of direct marketing. There are no exemptions or grounds to refuse. A Data Controller must deal with an objection to processing for direct marketing at any time and free of charge. Same as GDPR.
Direct Marketing and Consent  The Data Controller must inform individuals of their right to object “at the point of first communication” and in a privacy notice. For any consent to be valid it needs to be obvious what the data is going to be used for at the point of data collection and the Data Controller needs to be able to show clearly how consent was gained and when it was obtained. Including an unsubscribe facility in each marketing communication is recommended best practice. If an individual continues to accept the services of the Data Controller without objection, consent can be implied.
Data Processors The GDPR sets out more detailed statutory requirements to apply to the controller/processor relationship, and to processors in general. Data Processors are now directly subject to regulation and are prohibited from processing Personal Data except on instructions from the Data Controller.  Best practice would always be to put in place a contract between a controller and processor. Essentially, the contract should require the Data Processor to level-up its policies and procedures for handling personal data to ensure compliance with the DPA. Use of sub-contractors by the service provider should be prohibited without the prior approval of the Data Controller.
Data Protection Officer Mandatory if the core activities of the Data Controller consist of processing operations which require large scale regular and systematic monitoring of individuals or large scale processing of sensitive Personal Data. Does not require the appointment, although this is recommended best practice.
Penalties Two tiers of sanctions, with maximum fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is greater.  Refusal to comply or failure to comply with an order issued by the Ombudsman is an offence. Penalties are also included for unlawful obtaining or disclosing Personal Data . Directors may be held liable under certain conditions .

The Data Controller is liable on conviction to a fine up to CI$100,000 (approx.. US$122,000) or imprisonment for a term of 5 years or both. Monetary penalty orders of an amount up to CI$250,000 (US$304,878.05) may also be issued against a Data Controller

View Full PDF

Further Assistance

This publication is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice or a legal opinion. If you require further advice relating to the matters discussed in this Briefing, please contact us. We would be delighted to assist.

E: gary.smith@loebsmith.com
E: robert.farrell@loebsmith.com
E: ivy.wong@loebsmith.com
E. elizabeth.kenny@loebsmith.com
E: cesare.bandini@loebsmith.com
E: vivian.huang@loebsmith.com
E: faye.huang@loebsmith.com
E: max.lee@loebsmith.com
E: frost.wu@loebsmith.com

Share to WeChat

“Scan QR Code” in WeChat and tap ··· to share.

QR Code

Download our Briefing Note on Lifting the Corporate Veil of a Cayman Company.

View Full PDF

 

The Cayman Islands (Cayman) continue to be the leading offshore jurisdiction for the establishment of hedge funds, private equity funds, and investment funds focused on other asset classes. A large number of Cayman funds are structured as exempted limited partnerships (ELPs) where the affairs of the ELP are managed and operated by a general partner and the investors join the ELP as limited partners. The general partner is typically a Cayman exempted company (General Partner). Limited partners are prohibited from taking part in the management of an ELP and face liability risks if they do.

 

The duties and liabilities of the General Partner are governed by:

 

  • Cayman’s Exempted Limited Partnership Law 2014 (ELP Law).
  • Cayman’s Partnership Law (as revised).
  • The terms of the applicable Limited Partnership Agreement (Partnership Agreement) between the general partner(s) of the ELP and the limited partners of the ELP.
  • The rules of equity and of common law applicable to partnerships so far as they have not been amended by Cayman statutory provisions.

 

This article focuses on the main fiduciary duties of a General Partner of an ELP rather than on the General Partner’s duty of skill and care or other applicable duties arising under the ELP Law (for example, the duty to maintain a register of partners of the ELP and a register of capital contributions) that may apply to a General Partner.

FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND THEIR SCOPE

Duty to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP

 

The main fiduciary duty that a General Partner owes to the ELP and the ELP’s limited partners as a whole is the duty of loyalty and good faith. Under Cayman law this is expressed as requiring the General Partner to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP. There is no specific guidance in the ELP Law as to the full extent of this duty. There are no decisions of the Cayman Islands’ courts that have determined the full scope of the duty. However, as in other areas of Cayman law, it is reasonable to assume that the Cayman courts would refer to the decisions in English and Commonwealth cases, which are of persuasive authority if not binding authority, for guidance.

 

Before the ELP Law came into force in July 2014, a General Partner was under an absolute duty to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP. This duty could not be restricted, limited or varied by the terms of the Partnership Agreement between the General Partner and the limited partners. The requirement to act in the interest of the ELP often raises the issue of conflicts of interest for the General Partner, particularly when it acts as General Partner to more than one ELP.

 

Examples of where conflicts of interests can arise for the General Partner include:

 

  • The General Partner causes the ELP to:
    • co-invest with other ELPs (in which it is also the general partner) in only certain transactions that benefit the General Partner; or
    • co-invest in disproportionate amounts, which causes its interests to be no longer directly aligned with those of the limited partners of the ELP.
  • The General Partner causes the ELP to invest in a portfolio company in which the person(s) who control and/or own the General Partner, for example, the director(s) and/or shareholder(s) of the General Partner, have a personal interest.
  • The General Partner causes the ELP to purchase securities from person(s) who control and/or own the General Partner, for example, the director(s) and/or shareholder(s) of the General Partner.
  • The General Partner is responsible for valuing assets of the ELP where carried interest payable to the General Partner are based on such valuations.
  • Treatment of limited partners: the General Partner owes a fiduciary duty to the limited partners of the ELP as a whole. Therefore the General Partner should treat each limited partner of the ELP in a similar manner. It should not benefit one at the expense of the others. Different treatment of limited partners sometimes arises in the context of default by a limited partner in performing its obligations under the Partnership Agreement. For example, where the limited partner fails to pay its contributions to the ELP when a call on its capital commitments has been made.

 

Often the Partnership Agreement provides that where a limited partner fails to perform any of its obligations under, or otherwise breaches the Partnership Agreement (for example, where a limited partner fails to commit additional capital when called on to do so), that limited partner may be subject to or suffer remedies for, or consequences of, the failure or breach specified in the Partnership Agreement. Such remedies or consequences can include, for example, reducing, eliminating or forfeiting the defaulting limited partner’s partnership interest in the ELP. The ELP Law confirms that those remedies or consequences in the Partnership Agreement will not be unenforceable solely on the basis that they are penal in nature. This confirmation by the ELP Law reduces significantly the risk of those remedies or consequences in the Partnership Agreement being subject to legal challenge in the Cayman courts on the basis that they are penalties (that is, remedies that go well beyond a reasonable assessment and measure of the loss suffered as a consequence of the default) and may be unenforceable as a matter of Cayman law generally.

 

However, there is a risk of legal challenge by a limited partner where a General Partner fails to apply a clear and consistent approach to implementing such remedies in the Partnership Agreement against defaulting limited partners. The challenge could be based on the ground that the inconsistent implementation of such default procedures benefits one limited partner at the expense of the others or vice versa.

Modification of duty to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP

The ELP Law modified the scope of the fiduciary duty of a General Partner to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP. There is still an absolute duty on the General Partner of an ELP to act in good faith on matters concerning the ELP. However, the duty to act in the interest of the ELP is now subject to any express provision in the Partnership Agreement to the contrary.

 

The Partnership Agreement can therefore stipulate the circumstances in which the General Partner may act in the interest of a party other than the ELP (for example, see above, Duty to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP). Including these circumstances in the Partnership Agreement should make it easier for the General Partner to manage interests that compete against the interests of the ELP.

 

However, where the Partnership Agreement has no express provision to state in whose interest the General Partner must act in given circumstances, then the default position is that the General Partner must act in good faith in the interest of the ELP (that is, in the collective interest of all limited partners of the ELP).

 

Duty to exercise its powers for the purposes for which they are conferred

 

A General Partner’s powers derive from the ELP Law and the Partnership Agreement governing its relationship with the limited partners. The General Partner is under a fiduciary duty to exercise its powers for the purpose(s) for which they are conferred in the Partnership Agreement. The purposes in the Partnership Agreement can be stated in general terms, for example, to undertake any lawful activity under the ELP Law, or to act as an investment fund. They can also be expressed in specific terms, for example, to invest in a portfolio consisting primarily of securities of companies in the renewable energy, renewables, clean technology, environment regeneration sectors and to engage in all activities and transactions as may be necessary, advisable, or desirable to carry out these activities. Where the Partnership Agreement of an ELP is, for example, negotiated with a large institutional investor or seed capital investor, the investor will more than likely seek to have the purpose(s) of the ELP stated in more specific terms.

 

A duty of trusteeship of the ELP’s assets

 

The ELP Law states that all “rights or property of every description of the [ELP], including all choses in action and any right to make capital calls and receive the proceeds thereof that is conveyed to or vested in or held on behalf of any one or more of the general partners or which is conveyed into or vested in the name of the [ELP] shall be held or deemed to be held by the general partner and if more than one then by the general partners jointly, upon trust as an asset of the [ELP] in accordance with the terms of the partnership agreement” (section 16(1), ELP Law).

 

As the General Partner holds the ELP’s assets on trust, it follows that it should:

 

  • Not make any secret profits from such assets or, without express authorisation, appropriate any benefits or opportunities that derive from such assets for itself.
  • Disclose personal interest in contracts involving the ELP.
  • Apply the ELP’s assets for the purpose of the ELP.

ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF BREACHING FIDUCIARY DUTIES

A General Partner can minimise the risk of breaching its fiduciary duties to the ELP and thereby the risk of being sued by one or more limited partners by adopting some or all of the following:

 

Avoid conflict transactions or establish advisory committees or votes of limited partners to approve conflict transactions or waive conflicts. An ELP’s Partnership Agreement often provides for the establishment of an advisory committee to adjudicate on, among other things, conflict situations involving the General Partner. The use of advisory committees is a good way of mitigating the risk of the General Partner being found to be in breach of its fiduciary duties for failing to deal with conflicts or dealing with them inadequately. The ELP Law confirms that, subject to any terms of the Partnership Agreement to the contrary, a member of the ELP’s Advisory Committee does not owe any fiduciary duty to the ELP or to the General Partner or to any of the ELP’s limited partners, in exercising any of its rights or otherwise in performing any of its obligations as a member of the advisory committee (section 24(2), ELP Law).

 

Clear and consistent policies. The General Partner should ensure that the ELP, where possible, adopts clear and consistent valuation policies approved by the ELP’s advisory committee. The General Partner should also ensure that the ELP, where possible, adopts clear and consistent policies for dealing with circumstances where limited partners default on their obligations in the Partnership Agreement (for example, failing to make contributions when a capital call has been made).

 

Internal compliance. The General Partner should establish clear internal procedures for identifying potential conflicts and dealing with them (for example, referral to the advisory committee for consideration).

 

Restrict the scope of fiduciary duties by agreement. The Partnership Agreement can be drafted in such a way as to minimise or eliminate fiduciary duties. For example, the ELP Law now permits the Partnership Agreement to set out circumstances in which the General Partner may act in the interests of parties other than the ELP (see above, Modification of duty to act in good faith in the interest of the ELP). The Partnership Agreement can also be used to clearly exclude fiduciary duty obligations of the General Partner in other areas but this will depend on the relative bargaining power between the General Partner and incoming limited partners and the degree of negotiation of the Partnership Agreement. However, the absolute duty on the General Partner to act in good faith in respect of the ELP cannot be excluded or eliminated.

 

Gary Smith, Partner

 

Loeb Smith
T +1 345 749 7590
E gary.smith@loebsmith.com
W www.loebsmith.com

 

Professional qualifications. Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Attorney; Supreme Court of England and Wales, Solicitor (non- practising)

 

Areas of practice. Investment funds; private equity, M&A; corporate finance.

 

Publications

 

  • Introduction of the New ELP Law and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Law 2014: Good news for Cayman Islands domiciled private equity funds. Private Equity and Venture Capital Global Guide 2014/15.
  • Investment Funds: Cayman Islands, Practical Law Investment Funds Global Guide 2012.
  • Introduction of Non-Petition Covenants, International Corporate Rescue Vol. 10, 2013, Issue 4.
  • Cayman Islands’ Court of Appeal Re-affirms Status of Segregated Portfolio Companies, International Corporate Rescue Vol. 9, 2012, Issue 6.

 

View Full PDF

Share to WeChat

“Scan QR Code” in WeChat and tap ··· to share.

QR Code

IN THIS ISSUE

 

  • The risks of back-dating Cayman Islands law governed documents
  • Overview of Cayman Islands law governing hedge funds – Q&A
  • FATCA Update – Cayman Islands agree Model 1 IGA with the United States
  • FATCA Update – Cayman Islands agree FATCA Type IGA with the UK

 

The risks of back-dating Cayman Islands law governed documents

 

If the parties to an agreement governed by Cayman Islands law would like the agreement to take effect from a date earlier than the date upon which the agreement is signed and entered into, the parties should expressly state in the document that it is intended to be effective from a date earlier than the date on which the parties entered into the agreement. It should be made clear in the document that notwithstanding it being entered into on the date of execution by the parties, it is to take effect from an earlier date.

 

Stating that the agreement will be effective from an earlier date will, however, only be effective, as a matter of Cayman Islands law, as between or among the parties to the agreement. It will not affect those parties’ obligations under the terms of the agreement with regard to third parties who are not parties to the agreement. The obligations to third parties will almost invariably be based on the date that the agreement was fully executed, subject to any applicable special circumstances.

 

Whilst parties signing a Cayman Islands law governed agreement may expressly state that the agreement is effective from an earlier date, the parties should not “back-date” the date of execution (for example, by signing the agreement today but dating it with an earlier date, thereby making the document seem as if it was also signed on some earlier date). The document should be dated with the date on which it is signed and entered into. Back-dating agreements has a number risks for the parties thereto, including the risk of civil and/or criminal sanctions being brought by, for example, tax authorities and regulatory authorities in jurisdictions where the document is required to be filed or produced. Depending on, among other things, the nature and subject matter of the agreement, the parties risk facing claims of false accounting or false statements by directors, or even conspiracy to defraud, if they “back-date” the agreement in order to give the impression that the agreement was entered into on some earlier date.

 

Overview of Cayman Islands law governing hedge funds – Q&A

 

1. What are the key statutes and regulations that govern hedge funds in the Cayman Islands? Which regulatory bodies regulate hedge funds?

 

The primary legislation regulating hedge funds in the Cayman Islands is the Mutual Funds Law (As Revised) (the “Funds Law”) and accompanying regulations, including the Retail Mutual Funds (Japan) Regulations (2007 Revision, as amended) which generally apply to investment funds licensed under the Funds Law (licensed funds) where the securities are marketed to the public in Japan.

 

What is a “mutual fund”?

 

The Funds Law defines a “mutual fund” as follows (emphasis added):
“a company, unit trust or partnership that issues equity interests, the purpose or effect of which is the pooling of investor funds with the aim of spreading investment risks and enabling investors in the mutual fund to receive profits or gains from the acquisition, holding, management or disposal of investments but does not include a person licensed under the Banks and Trust Companies Law (2009 Revision) or the Insurance Law (2008 Revision), or a person registered under the Building Societies Law (2010 Revision) or the Friendly Societies Law (1998 Revision)”.

 

Accordingly investment funds which are established for a sole investor and do not involve the pooling of investor funds fall outside the regulatory framework of the Funds Law. Nonetheless, a single investor hedge fund can apply for voluntary registration to, among other things, benefit from the status of being a fund registered with and regulated by Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (the “Monetary Authority”).

 

Will the mutual fund issue “equity interests”?

 

As can be seen from the definition of “mutual fund” above, the Funds Law applies only to investment funds which issue “equity interests”. Equity interests are defined in the Funds Law as:
“a share, trust unit or partnership interest that-
(a) carries an entitlement to participate in the profits or gains of the company, unit trust or partnership; and
(b) is redeemable or repurchasable at the option of the investor….. before the commencement of winding-up or the dissolution of the company, unit trust or partnership, but does not include debt,…”

 

The Funds Law makes it clear that debt-issuance vehicles do not (unless they also issue relevant equity interests) fall within its scope. The vast majority of Cayman Islands’ hedge funds are regulated under the Funds Law.

 

Investment funds investing in private equity, real estate, bankruptcies, re-organisations, liquidations and other distressed securities which do not give investors the right to redeem their shares, units or interests from the fund at the investor’s option do not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Funds Law. The law as set out herein therefore applies only in respect of investment funds of any asset class which satisfies the definition of “equity interests” above. For present purposes we will refer to these funds as “Open-ended Funds”.

 

Registration
Open-ended Funds are, subject to the exemption noted below, required to be registered with the Monetary Authority.

 

Exemption from Registration
Open-ended Funds in which the “equity interests” are held by not more than fifteen (15) investors, a majority of whom are capable of appointing or removing the “operator” of the fund are not required to be registered with the Monetary Authority. In the case of an investment fund structured as a company, the operator would be the fund’s Directors. In the case of an investment fund structured as a limited partnership, the operator would be the fund’s general partner(s). In the case of an investment fund structured as a unit trust, the operator would be the fund’s trustee(s).

 

As noted above, private equity funds and other closed-ended funds (e.g. real estate funds) which do not give investors the right to redeem their shares, units or interests from the fund at the investor’s option do not issue “equity interests” for the purposes of the Funds Law and therefore would not fall into the registration regime in any event.

 

Ancillary legislation affecting Cayman Islands Open-ended Funds include the:

 

  • Companies Law (2012 Revision) (“Companies Law”).
  • Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2012 Revision) (“ELP Law”).
  • Partnership Law (2002 Revision) (“Partnership Law”).
  • Trusts Law (2009 Revision) (“Trusts Law”).
  • Banks and Trust Companies Law (2009 Revision) (“BTC Law”).
  • Securities Investment Business Law (2011 Revision) (“SIB Law”).
  • Proceeds of Crime Law 2008 (“PCL”).
  • Money Laundering Regulations (2010 Revision) (“ML Regulations”), enacted pursuant to powers under the PCL.

 

The PCL, ML Regulations and the guidance notes prepared and issued by the Monetary Authority on the prevention and detection of money laundering in the Cayman Islands to provide guidance to service providers in complying with their obligations under the ML Regulations (Guidance Notes) are together referred to as the AML Laws.

 

Regulatory bodies. The Investment and Securities Division of the Monetary Authority is responsible for the ongoing supervision of Open-ended Funds and fund administrators. The Funds Law is administered by the Monetary Authority.

 

The Financial Reporting Authority (FRA) is the Cayman Islands’ Financial Intelligence Unit with responsibility for receiving, analysing and disseminating disclosures of financial information concerning the proceeds of criminal conduct, money laundering and the financing of terrorism pursuant to the provisions of the PCL. Suspicious activity or transaction reports (that is, reports on financial transactions in which there are reasonable grounds to suspect the transactions are related to the proceeds of criminal conduct (as defined in the PCL) must be submitted to the FRA.

 

2. What are the categories of regulated hedge funds? What are the main legal vehicles used to set up a hedge fund and what are the key advantages and disadvantages of using these structures?

 

There are three categories of Open-ended Funds which are subject to regulation under the Funds Law in the Cayman Islands. The distinction between them turns on the manner in which they are regulated under the Funds Law, rather than on the type of vehicle or configuration of vehicles that is/are being regulated. These three categories are as follows:

 

  • Licensed funds – these are funds which hold a license under the Funds Law. These Open-ended Funds must have either a registered office in the Cayman Islands or, if a unit trust, a trustee which is licensed under the Banks and Trust Companies Law.
    These Open-ended Funds are also subject to a prior approval process, requiring the Monetary Authority to be satisfied with the experience and reputation of the promoter and administrator and to be satisfied that the business of the fund and the offering of its interests will be carried out in a proper way. This category of Open-ended Funds is relatively rare. According to figures published by the Monetary Authority, as of the end of 2012, there were 121 of this category of Open-ended Funds registered in the Cayman Islands.
  • Funds with no minimum investment threshold – Open-ended Funds with a minimum subscription level of less than US$100,000 must have a licensed mutual fund administrator providing their principal office in the Cayman Islands (as distinct from funds falling in the third category below which can have an administrator outside the Cayman Islands). This category of Open-ended Funds is also relatively rare. According to figures published by the Monetary Authority, as of the end of 2012, there were 408 of this category of Open-ended Funds registered in the Cayman Islands.
  • Funds with a US$100,000 minimum investment threshold – Open-ended Funds where either: (i) the minimum equity interest purchasable by a prospective investor is US$100,000 or its equivalent in another currency; or (ii) the equity interests are listed on an approved stock exchange or over the counter market, constitute the vast majority of hedge funds established in the Cayman Islands. According to figures published by the Monetary Authority, as of the end of 2012, there were 8,421 of this category of Open-ended Funds registered in the Cayman Islands.

 

Legal vehicles used to establish Open-ended Funds

 

There are three types of vehicle that are used to establish hedge funds in the Cayman Islands:

 

  • Exempted companies (including segregated portfolio companies), which offers shares.
  • Exempted limited partnerships, which offers limited partnership interests.
  • Unit trusts, which offers units of beneficial interest to investors.

The choice of the structure used is often dictated by some or all of the following factors:

  • Market practice.
  • Tax.
  • The regulatory requirements of the investors in the fund.
  • The investors’ or investment manager’s familiarity or preference of one structure over another.

 

Advantages. Of the three structures, only the company benefits from separate legal personality distinct from its investors and administrators. Additionally, investors’ liabilities are limited to the amount unpaid on their shares, if any. The unit trust and limited partnership structures arguably offer more flexibility than the exempted company structure.

 

Disadvantages. The exempted company structure is subject to company law requirements (for example, capital maintenance restrictions) under the Companies Law and is arguably not as flexible as the limited partnership structure or the unit trust structure. Neither the limited partnership structure nor the unit trust structure has the benefit of separate corporate personality.

 

3. What are the key disclosure or filing requirements (if any) that must be completed by the hedge fund?

 

The following procedures apply to hedge fund registration:

 

  • If the minimum aggregate equity interest purchasable by a prospective investor is at least US$100,000 (or its equivalent in another currency) or the equity interests are listed on a recognized stock exchange, including the Cayman Islands Stock Exchange, then the registration application requires filing the following with the Monetary Authority:
  • A certified copy of the Certificate of Incorporation or Certificate of Registration (as applicable and depending on whether the fund is a company, limited partnership or trust);
    • Form MF1 (this form includes certain prescribed details of the fund, such as the identity of the operators and service providers and the key terms regarding subscriptions and redemptions);
    • a current offering document (for example, a private placement memorandum);
    • a consent letter from the fund’s administrator and a consent letter from the Cayman Islands auditor, approved by the Monetary Authority;
    • a registration fee of approximately US$4,268.
    • If a licensed investment fund’s administrator provides the fund’s principal office in the Cayman Islands (this may apply in the case of an investment fund that agrees to accept minimum initial investments below the US$100,000 threshold) then the registration is applied for by filing with the Monetary Authority:
    • Forms MF2 and MF2A, completed by the administrator and the investment fund (including similar particulars to the Form MF1) (see above);
    • the same documents (except the Form MF1) and registration fee as above.

 

FATCA Update – Cayman Islands agree Model 1 IGA with the United States

 

Earlier this year we reported that the Cayman Islands Government had announced in March 2013 its intention to adopt a Model 1 intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in response to the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

 

The Cayman Islands Government has now agreed a Model 1 IGA with, and has entered a new Tax Information Exchange Agreement with, the US government. This new arrangement stands to significantly simplify FATCA compliance for Cayman Islands financial institutions, including for hedge funds, private equity funds, banks, trust companies, structured finance vehicles, and insurance vehicles.

 

FATCA requires financial institutions to use enhanced due diligence procedures to identify US persons who have invested in either non-US financial accounts or non-US entities. One principal purpose behind FATCA is to deter US persons from hiding income and assets overseas. FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFI’s) to provide the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with information on certain US persons invested in accounts outside of the US and for certain non-US entities to provide information about any US owners. Each FFI risks significant consequences if it fails to enter into an agreement with the IRS by being, among other things, subject to a 30% withholding tax on any “withholdable payment” made to its proprietary account. The signing of the IGA by the Cayman Islands Government means, among other things:

 

(a) The US Government will treat the Cayman Islands as having an IGA in effect and the Cayman Islands will, upon signing, be added to the US Treasury’s list of jurisdictions that have signed but have not yet brought into force an IGA. The Cayman Islands will be treated as having an IGA in place for FATCA purposes.

 

(b) Compliance with FATCA for Cayman Islands financial institutions will be simplified significantly as a result of the agreement reached on the Model 1 IGA. For example, there will now be no need for each Cayman Islands financial institution to enter into an FFI Agreement directly with the IRS.

 

FATCA Update – Cayman Islands agree FATCA Type IGA with the UK

Earlier this month, the Cayman Islands Government signed an intergovernmental agreement with the United Kingdom (“UK IGA”), to set out the basis for the automatic exchange of financial information relating to UK tax payers who hold accounts in the Cayman Islands. The UK IGA will come into force once the internal procedures for both governments have been completed.

 

The UK IGA tracks the draft Model IGA that the Cayman Islands has agreed with the US Government in relation to FATCA. Under the UK IGA, Cayman Islands financial institutions will be required to report information annually to the Cayman Islands Tax Information Authority (“TIA”) on financial accounts that are held by UK individuals or entities controlled by UK persons. The TIA will then forward the UK tax payer information to the UK tax authority, HM Revenue and Customs. Additionally, the UK IGA contains details of the alternative reporting regime for UK resident non-domiciled individuals.

 

Efforts are being made to set up the legislative and operational framework to implement the UK IGA. The Cayman Islands Government has announced that it intends to issue guidance to assist with the implementation.

 

Cayman Islands:
Building B-3, Trinity Square, George Town,
P.O. Box 31493, Grand Cayman, KY1-1206 Cayman Islands

 

+1 345 749 7590
gary.smith@loebsmith.com

 

London:
78 York Street London
W1H 1DP
+44 207 183 7966

 

Download Full PDF Version

 

Share to WeChat

“Scan QR Code” in WeChat and tap ··· to share.

QR Code