Funds – How to Comply with Cayman’s New Corporate Governance Rules

Published: 3 May 2024
Type: Insight

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) issued rules on corporate governance and internal controls (Rules) applicable to all its regulated entities last year and those Rules have been effective since 14 October 2023.  The Rules apply to both hedge funds and private equity funds registered with CIMA.

This publication provides a summary of the requirements set out in each of the Rules and takes a look at some of the options available to Cayman funds to ensure compliance with the Rules.


New rules affecting Cayman funds

At the core of each Rule is a proportionality test requiring the implementation of the Rules in a manner that corresponds with the size, complexity, structure, business and risk profile of the Cayman fund.  This proportionality test allows scope for Cayman funds to implement the rules in a variety of ways.  Since the Rules came into effect, we have seen a number of different approaches taken by Cayman funds to ensure compliance with the Rules and we take the opportunity here to outline some of those approaches as a guide to implementation for those Cayman funds that have not yet taken steps to address the Rules.

The Rule on corporate governance imposes requirements around the objectives and strategies, governance structure and transparency of the Cayman fund, the delegation, oversight and risk management by its governing body and the independence, duties, conduct and remuneration of its governing body.

The Rule of internal controls imposes requirements around the control environment, risk identification, risk assessment, control activities, segregation of duties, information, communication and monitoring which are to apply across the Cayman fund’s governing body, its management and employees.  Cayman funds do not generally have employees and the requirements set out in the Rule on internal controls are likely best addressed through instructions to the fund’s service providers to report on their own internal control policies and procedures and to identify any lapses in compliance with those policies, remedial action taken or to be taken and any resulting risks.

Cayman funds compliance

Most Cayman funds will already be largely compliant with the Rules by virtue of the common terms set out in their constitutional and/or offering documents and the common areas covered by service provider reports to the fund’s governing body but there may be certain areas that may need to be addressed to ensure full compliance with the Rules.

Many of our fund clients have taken the approach that an analysis by their directors, general partner or trustee of the fund’s governance and internal control structure, the documenting of that analysis and the resolution of any deficiencies identified is sufficient to ensure compliance with the Rules.

We have also seen some Cayman funds wanting to ensure a detailed implementation of the Rules through the adoption of specific compliance policies, or the updating of their existing compliance policies, to address the requirements of each of the Rules and set out the rationale for the adopted approach to comply with those requirements.

Where the update of existing policies or the adoption of new policies is impractical for a Cayman fund, they may choose to set out their commitment to comply with the Rules in resolutions of their governing body.

Generally, the areas of the Rules that Cayman funds may feel require additional steps to be taken are either one-off steps or annual requirements.

The one-off steps set out in the Rules that a Cayman fund may want to address are the adoption of independence criteria and the CIMA code of conduct for its governing body and the formal establishment of the fund’s governing body as the fund’s audit committee.

Generally, the areas of the rules that Cayman funds may feel require addressing on an annual basis are the declaration of conflicts, board self-assessments, confirmation of time commitments, remuneration policies and the documentation and monitoring of outsourced functions.  These annual requirements might be addressed by regular annual declarations at one of the board meetings held by the Cayman fund throughout the year.

Our funds and regulatory support

Our funds and regulatory team have seen an increased demand from clients for advice and assistance on ensuring that their regulatory policies and procedures are aligned with CIMA’s expectations as contained in the Rules. We regularly conduct gap analyses against these CIMA requirements and advise of any deficiencies and how best to address them.

Our board support services, if not already adopted by our Cayman fund clients, can provide an essential tool to ensure that they are appropriately addressing the Rules and that they are kept up to date with all regulatory developments in the Cayman Islands.

This information is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. For specific regulatory advice, please contact any member of our regulatory team.

 

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
16 Feb 2026

Preparing for and Managing a CIMA Onsite Inspection

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is empowered, under the Monetary Authority Act and certain other regulatory laws, to inspect regulated financial service providers (FSP) in the Cayman Islands such as banks, trust companies, administrators, investment managers and virtual asset service providers for compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks. CIMA routinely conducts onsite inspections of such regulated entities – which can be full-scope (involving a review of all areas of a regulated entity's business operations) or thematically focused on specific areas such as corporate governance and/or internal controls, policies and procedures pertaining to AML/CFT/CPF. With the breadth and number of onsite inspections carried out by CIMA having increased through 2024 and 2025 we consider, in this briefing: (i) the CIMA onsite inspection process; (ii) the latest feedback available from CIMA in respect of inspections conducted to date; and (iii) some frequently asked questions in relation to CIMA onsite inspections.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
16 Feb 2026

Injunctive Relief in Another Form? Cayman Court's Jurisdiction to Appoint JPLs Despite Ongoing Arbitration

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [link],[1] the Grand Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators notwithstanding the fact that the company’s shareholders are engaged in an arbitration over its affairs, as mandated by a binding arbitration agreement. This article considers the decision and its implications.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
11 Feb 2026

When the Court intervenes… and when it does not: Grand Court Reaffirms Limited Curial Intervention in Support of Foreign Arbitrations

The Financial Services Division of the Grand Court’s judgment in In the matter of A v B & C (FSD 270 of 2025) provides a timely reminder of the proper boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals in respect of the grant of interim relief. The decision underscores the Cayman Islands' commitment to the principle of limited curial intervention and confirms that the Court’s powers under section 54 of the Arbitration Act 2012 are ancillary to the arbitral process and are only to be exercised when the tribunal cannot provide effective relief itself. The judgment helpfully sets out clear parameters for those seeking ancillary relief and highlights that the Cayman courts will support arbitration proceedings without supplanting them.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
4 Feb 2026

The New Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework – Relevance for Cayman Investment Funds

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (CARF Regulations) came into effect on 1 January 2026 and provide for the collection, reporting and automatic exchange of information on transactions in crypto-assets.  The CARF Regulations will operate in a similar fashion to the existing Cayman Common Reporting Standard (CRS) regime which facilitates the automatic exchange of financial account information.  For information on recent changes to the CRS, please see our December advisory here.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
27 Jan 2026

CIMA Launches Prudential Information Survey for SIBA Registered Persons

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published a General Industry Notice launching a new Prudential Information Survey for Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) of the Cayman Islands.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.