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
Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2026

CIMA Enforcement Action in Focus: Reminders and Recommendations

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has recently published a number of Enforcement Notices that provide helpful context for regulated entities, including Licensees and Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA), seeking to understand and meet their ongoing regulatory obligations in the Cayman Islands. In early June 2026, CIMA exercised its enforcement powers under SIBA Section 17 to cancel the registrations of several SIBA Registered Persons on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to believe that such Registered Persons had failed to meet certain key regulatory obligations. The Appleby Team takes this opportunity to review the relevant findings and CIMA enforcement action; and to highlight certain key obligations that attach to regulated entities in the Cayman Islands.