Cayman Islands’ Limited Liability Partnership Law, 2017 comes into force

Published: 15 Jun 2017
Type: Insight

We are pleased to report that the Limited Liability Partnership Law, 2017 (Law) came into force on 5 June 2017, making the Cayman Islands limited liability partnership (LLP) available for the first time in the jurisdiction. The Law provides for the formation, registration and operation of an LLP. We expect the regulations under the Law to be gazetted shortly.


What is an LLP?

An LLP is a statutory entity with limited liability. The key feature that distinguishes an LLP from a limited partnership registered under one of the Cayman Islands’ other partnership statutes (LP) is the LLP’s independent legal personality; the Law provides for the formation of an LLP as an entity with legal personality other than a body corporate which is separate and distinct from the partners in the LLP. The affairs of an LLP are governed by its partnership agreement. Unless otherwise provided in its partnership agreement, an LLP shall be capable of exercising all the functions of a natural person of full capacity irrespective of any question of benefit.

Other key features of an LLP

An LLP can be formed to carry on a business for any lawful purpose provided it has at least two partners.

The registration of an LLP is simple, requiring the filing of a registration statement and payment of the appropriate fee. If the LLP is to have a corporate managing partner or a managing partner which is a partnership to be registered under the Law, a certificate of incorporation or certificate of registration, as the case may be, and a certificate of good standing in respect of that managing partner will also be required. The proposed name of the LLP must include “LLP”, “L.L.P.” or “Limited Liability Partnership” and should be checked in advance with the Registrar of Limited Liability Partnerships (Registrar).

With a few exceptions, no partner or former partner of an LLP shall be liable for any debt or loss of the LLP, including any debt or loss caused by the act or omission of another partner or former partner in the LLP. Nothing in a partnership agreement may deprive the partners of this benefit. However, (i) a partner or former partner in an LLP shall be liable for any loss caused by a negligent act or omission of that partner or former partner where that partner or former partner assumed an express duty of care to a person and acted in breach of that duty; and (ii) partners in an LLP may agree, as between partners, to indemnify any of the partners or any former partner in respect of any debt or loss.

Unlike an LP, an LLP does not distinguish between general partners and limited partners. An LLP may have one or more managing partners with the responsibilities set out in the Law and under its partnership agreement, failing which for the purposes of the Law all partners will be managing partners.

There are no residency requirements for partners in an LLP, but an LLP must have a registered office in the Cayman Islands at which it is required to maintain, among other things, a register of partners (indicating which partners, if any, are managing partners) and a register of mortgages, both of which are to be open for inspection by the public.

An LLP may apply for a 50-year tax undertaking certificate from the Cayman Islands Government if the application is accompanied by a declaration by the LLP that it shall not undertake business with the public in the Cayman Islands other than so far as may be necessary for the carrying on of the business of that LLP outside the Cayman Islands.

On meeting prescribed conditions, existing Cayman partnerships may convert into LLPs and foreign LLPs may continue into the Cayman Islands as LLPs under the Law.

Uses of an LLP

We expect the LLP structure will be popular with professional services firms in the Cayman Islands, which have traditionally been established as general partnerships. However, the Law has been drafted broadly enough for LLPs to be used for international financial services transactions as an alternative to companies or LPs.

The Law is the natural outcome of the Cayman Islands paying attention and responding to the input and needs of global industry and its participants and further consolidates the Cayman Islands’ position as a leading offshore jurisdiction.

Share
More publications
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).

IWD website preview
9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
3 Mar 2026

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2025/26

The round-up provides a concise yet thorough summary of regulatory developments relevant to financial service providers (FSPs) and other stakeholders in the Cayman Islands. It highlights key legislative changes, publications by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), updates on financial sanctions, and anticipates upcoming changes through "horizon scanning”. Links to the underlying CIMA publications, as well as related Appleby published briefings and e-alerts are available throughout this document. The information provided is “as of” 28 May 2025.