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
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.