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-Funds-and-Investment-Services
28 Oct 2026

Side Letters: Preferential Terms, Practical Challenges

Side letters are a common feature of Cayman Islands investment funds. This article outlines the legal framework governing side letters, the key considerations for fund operators when negotiating and granting preferential terms, and the implications of side letters for subscription financing arrangements.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
22 Oct 2026

Grand Court Sees Through "Specific Performance" Label And Stays Redemption Claim In Favour Of HKIAC Arbitration

We are pleased to report on our recent win in the Cayman Grand Court: a stay of Cayman proceedings concerning a US$87m+ redemption claim in favour of HKIAC arbitration. Doyle J found that the claim for "specific performance" was "entirely artificial and a mere device" intended to escape the arbitration clause. The Appleby team comprised John McCarroll SC, Damon Booth and Ray Leung (Hong Kong), and Andrew Jackson and Zuhair Farouki (Cayman). Andrew Ayres KC appeared as leading counsel.

Appleby-Website-Cayman1
21 Oct 2026

The Cayman Islands LLC at ten: what fund finance has learned

Ten years on, the Cayman Islands LLC is an established part of fund finance practice. A useful question is how an LLC’s contractual flexibility affects lender diligence, security and enforcement, and when an exempted company remains the more efficient financing vehicle.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
1 Sep 2026

The Executor's Year in the Law of the Cayman Islands

Of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the suit which stands at the centre of Bleak House and which concerned an estate drawn into the administration of the Court of Chancery, Dickens wrote that 'this scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means'. The complaint was not the novelist's invention. It was directed at a state of affairs in which the beneficiary dissatisfied with the conduct of an administration had in substance one remedy, a decree for general administration, which took the whole estate into the hands of the court and kept it there, upon occasion until there was little left to distribute.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
26 Aug 2026

Comparative Analysis of Cayman and BVI Companies as Listing Vehicles

This article provides an in-depth company-law comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Cayman Islands and BVI companies as listing vehicles, with a view to assisting businesses in selecting the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for their listing vehicle.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English High Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan v Mansimov

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

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.