Economic substance requirements for fund management business

Published: 8 Mar 2019
Type: Insight

On 1 January 2019, The International Tax Co-Operation (Economic Substance) Law, 2018 of the Cayman Islands (ES Law) and related Regulations came into force. Additional Regulations and Guidance were issued on 22 February 2019.

The ES Law requires certain entities incorporated or registered in the Cayman Islands and carrying on specified activities to have ‘adequate substance’ in the Cayman Islands. One of the specified activities that may be relevant to your business is “fund management business”.

The scope of this eAlert is limited to the application of the ES Law to fund management business.

Relevant Entities

The ES Law applies only to “relevant entities” meaning Cayman companies (other than domestic companies), Cayman limited liability companies, Cayman limited liability partnerships and foreign companies registered in Cayman, but excluding investment funds and entities that are tax resident outside of the Cayman Islands.

Fund Management Business

“Fund management business” is the business of managing securities belonging to another person in circumstances involving the exercise of discretion, carried on by a relevant entity licensed under the Cayman Islands Securities Investment Business Law (SIBL) for an investment fund.

Economic Substance Test

A relevant entity conducting fund management business is required to satisfy a 3-branch economic substance test in relation to such fund management business. It must:

1. conduct core income generating activity in the Cayman Islands which includes:

taking decisions on the holding and selling of investments;

calculating risk and reserves;

taking decisions on currency or interest fluctuations and hedging positions; or

preparing reports or returns, or both, to investors or the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, or both,

2. be directed and managed in an appropriate manner in the Cayman Islands which will require, among other things:

the board of directors, as a whole, to have the appropriate knowledge and expertise to discharge its duties as a board of directors;

meetings of the board of directors to be held in the Cayman Islands at adequate frequencies given the level of decision-making required;

the minutes of all meetings of the board of directors and appropriate records of the relevant entity to be kept in the Cayman Islands,

3. having regard to the level of relevant income derived from the relevant activity carried out in the Cayman Islands –

(i) have adequate operating expenditure incurred in the Cayman Islands;

(ii) have adequate physical presence (including maintaining a place of business or plant, property and equipment) in the Cayman Islands; and

(iii) have an adequate number of full-time employees or other personnel with appropriate qualifications in the Cayman Islands.

The satisfaction of the economic substance requirements will be a question of fact. There will not be a one-size-fits-all approach and much will depend on the size and scope of the business (both in the Cayman Islands and in other locations) and its expected gross income in the Cayman Islands.

Possible Expansion of Scope

Currently, the definition of “fund management business” covers only entities that are licensed under SIBL. However, amendments have been proposed to apply economic substance requirements to relevant entities that fall within the definition of, and are registered as, excluded persons under SIBL (Excluded Persons).

Any Excluded Person providing discretionary investment management services to investment funds will wish to monitor these developments closely. For now, we alert you to the proposed changes so that you may prepare for the future and make provisions within your business plan to ensure compliance with the law if and when these proposals become law.

Next Steps

All relevant entities conducting fund management business will need to undertake an internal review to determine what measures, if any, they might need to take in order to achieve compliance. If you would like further guidance on how these requirements will impact your business, please reach out to your usual Appleby contact.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

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

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

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.