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
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).