How fund managers should prepare for the Cayman Islands Data Protection Law

Published: 20 Sep 2019
Type: Insight

The Cayman Islands Data Protection Law, 2017 (DPL) comes into force on 30 September 2019 and will regulate the future processing of all personal data in the Cayman Islands.


Drafted around a set of internationally recognised privacy principles, the new law provides a framework of rights and duties designed to give individuals greater control over their personal data. The DPL joins the Confidential Information Disclosure Law, 2016 and common law obligations of confidentiality to give the Cayman Islands the most comprehensive data protection regime in the region. 

With the implementation date less than a month away, managers of Cayman funds that have not already done so should take steps to ensure that they understand their funds’ obligations under the new law. This will include having in place policies and procedures to ensure the proper protection of all personal data under their control, as well as creating an effective governance regime for approving, overseeing, implementing and reviewing those policies. Cayman funds must get it right – reputations and criminal liability will soon be at stake.

Data protection effect on funds

“Personal data” is defined widely under the law to include any data relating to a living individual. Therefore, the average fund potentially generates and retains a large amount of personal data. Fund managers hold proprietary and personal information about markets, companies and individuals, including high-value email and contact lists and net worth information.

Under the DPL, personal data held by a fund must be processed fairly and lawfully and used for a legitimate purpose that has been notified to the data subject in advance. Personal data holdings should not be excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and should be securely purged once those purposes have been fulfilled. If personal data is processed for any new purposes, this processing can only be undertaken if there is a legitimate purpose for doing so and if the data subject has been notified.

While it is unlikely that a fund manager will use personal data other than for the purposes of processing an investment and meeting legitimate reporting and record keeping obligations, funds must set out both the purposes for which personal data is being collected and details regarding with whom that data may be shared. The fund should disclose this information in a separate privacy notice, which can be provided with the fund’s offering memorandum and subscription documents.

Transferring Data to Third Parties

Fund managers’ operational, trading and back[1]office functions are now mostly digitised and delegated to external service providers. In an age where highly sensitive information can be exchanged at the touch of a button, data protection issues must be considered before any transfers of personal data are made to third parties.

Fund managers must, therefore, conduct proper due diligence on the systems, policies and procedures of those third-party service providers to ensure that personal data is handled appropriately and securely. In addition, it is advisable for each manager to conduct regular physical audits and independent testing of a service provider’s controls.

Contractual provisions should be put in place between the fund (as the data controller) and the third-party service provider (as the data processor) to ensure that any personal data is processed only for authorised purposes; that all data is stored and transmitted securely; and that disaster-recovery practices are in place in the event of a data breach. Use of subcontractors by the service provider should be prohibited without the prior approval of the fund.

Data protection Compliance for funds

The DPL gives individuals the right to access personal data held about them and to request that any inaccurate data be corrected or deleted. Funds will need to implement policies and procedures to manage these requests.

The law also obliges businesses to cease processing personal data once the purposes for which that data has been collected have been exhausted. Prescribed data-retention periods are not set out in the DPL, but an analysis will need to be undertaken to determine how long data should be kept for. Similarly, it will be important to evaluate how personal data can be securely deleted once the purposes for holding it have been fulfilled.

The Office of the Ombudsman will have responsibility for enforcing the new law and has issued a Guide for Data Controllers to assist organisations with the implementation process. Breaches of the DPL could result in fines of up to CI$100,000 per breach, imprisonment for a term of up to five years or both. Other monetary penalties of up to CI$250,000 are also possible under the law.

In addition to the enforcement powers of the Ombudsman, the DPL provides that any person who suffers damage as a result of a data controller’s breach may bring a civil claim for compensation. This means that a DPL breach could be used either as a standalone claim or as part of a litigation strategy to support a wider claim against a fund.

Implementing a new data protection compliance programme to take account of the DPL or incorporating the requirements of the DPL into an existing programme will involve ensuring that there is an effective governance regime for approving, overseeing, implementing and reviewing data-protection policies and procedures. Although the appointment of a Data Protection Officer is not mandatory under the DPL, funds are recommended to do so to ensure a coordinated chain of command and proper compliance.

Protecting personal data is increasingly business-critical for funds. Even if monetary losses are not sustained as a result of personal data being mishandled, the reputational damage to a fund following a breach could be devastating.

First published by Hedge Fund Law Report, September 2019.

Share
More publications
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.