How best to protect your investment in a Cayman Islands based crypto hedge fund

Published: 29 May 2018
Type: Insight

First published by AlphaWeek

The Cayman Islands is one of the top offshore jurisdictions for hedge funds, with an investor friendly tax regime, an established and reliable legal system and experienced professionals familiar with every aspect of an investment fund’s life-cycle. It is therefore little surprise that many crypto-currency funds are choosing the Cayman Islands as their place of incorporation.


Crypto-currency offers an opportunity for impressive returns, and an investment fund gives investors access to opportunities that they may not otherwise be able to attain individually. However, as with all types of investments, crypto-currency funds are not without risk and there are steps that prudent investors should take to best position themselves in the event that the fund hits difficulties.

Whilst hoping for the best, investors should bear in mind that in a worst case scenario, a liquidator’s primary objective is to realise and distribute the fund’s assets, in the following order of priority: expenses of the liquidation, general unsecured creditors (service providers, liquidity providers etc), investor creditors (investors who are owed payments from the fund in relation to their character as member, such as in respect of redemptions or dividends) and investors (those who remain and participate only if there are surplus assets after payment of creditors and expenses).

There are three stages of a fund’s lifecycle at which investors can take steps to seek to improve their standing in the ultimate event that the fund runs into troubled times. It is generally the least proactive investor that is left bearing any losses.

During the initial investment

The liquidity of crypto-currency investments can be ideal for open ended investment funds (which allow investors to subscribe or redeem periodically based on a defined net asset value (NAV) whilst specific investments in the underlying technology may be more suited to closed-ended funds (usually raising an initial amount of capital tailored towards an investment strategy, with the opportunity to increase or realise the investment only at limited points in time). The Investment Manager’s (IMs) broad strategy will be set out in the fund’s offering documents, including key risk factors which should be reviewed in detail by potential investors. As an emerging asset class, crypto-currency funds will need to maintain the flexibility to respond to regulatory change and market trends that may develop more quickly than traditional asset classes.

Considerations relevant to both types of fund will include:

The structure of the board: specific experience with crypto-currencies both amongst the operational board members but also whether the independent directors are providing genuine oversight and specific value/knowledge.

What information is periodically provided or can be requested by investors to ensure compliance with investment criteria and responses to emerging risks. Investors may be able to negotiate enhanced access to information or circulation of investment data.

The basis upon which the fund values its investments and calculates the NAV.

Steps the fund proposes to protect its asset holding.

Whether investors are prevented from petitioning for the winding up of the fund.

Whether the fund will accept subscriptions and make redemptions utilising crypto-currency and the valuation interaction between NAV and that mechanism.

Investors in open ended funds should also consider:

The regularity with which NAV is calculated and the redemption period. Whether the investor can negotiate shorter redemption periods, or whether other investors are getting favourable terms.

The fund’s liquidity provision enabling it to reduce underlying asset turnover and align redemptions and subscriptions.

  • Whether the fund’s investment strategy would be adversely affected by withdrawals and accommodate new subscriptions.

Investors in closed-ended funds should also consider:

The ultimate expiration date and strategy, together with the rights to extend the life of the fund.

Whether there are any ongoing capital call commitments.

During the course of the investment

Much of this will involve continuous checks against the criteria established at the investment stage: an investor should not allow the IM to rest on its laurels. Pay particular attention for:

Over concentration in excess of the fund’s stated investment parameters.

Delays in reported NAV.

Lack of clear strategy in dealing with significant market developments.

Unexpected and unexplained changes in the board or service providers.

Suspension or gating of redemptions and redemption payments.

Consistent returns despite varying or volatile market conditions.

An investor who has submitted a valid redemption request is paid in priority to an investor who has not, and so acting upon red flags can be the difference between getting paid or losing an investment. If the fund fails to pay redemption requests promptly, investors should consider taking legal action for an unpaid debt, including issuing a statutory demand or a petition that the fund be wound up. Whilst many jurisdictions contain provisions clawing back payments made to some creditors in favour of others when a fund is on the brink of insolvency, the Cayman Islands courts do not currently permit liquidators to clawback payments if they were made to stave off legal or regulatory action, and so the threat of such may be sufficient to procure payment or favourable treatment, rather than relying upon a distribution through the liquidation of the fund.

Wind down

If the fund is unable to pay its creditors as they fall due (the Cayman Islands has a cash-flow insolvency test), then it may end up in an involuntary court supervised liquidation. Even in this situation, investors may take steps to protect their position by:

Notifying the liquidator of their interest, including any claim to creditor status arising from redemption requests or side-letters, the liquidators must report to stakeholders and distributions will be determined by the investor’s status as creditor or investor;

Seeking to join the liquidation committee of the fund, which will act as a steering board to the liquidation and could provide useful information;

Entering into funding arrangements with the liquidator, in exchange for a share in the upside of any recovery actions as well as increasing the pool available for general distribution;

Bidding in any asset realization process conducted by the liquidators;

Trading in any secondary market in distressed shares to crystallise current value and remove ongoing uncertainty.

At each stage of a fund’s life-cycle information is key: procuring access to information will enable the investor to seek to maximise its returns and react to underlying developments in crypto-currency.

Share
More publications
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.

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.

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

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