What Steps Should a Cayman Fund Take to Comply with the New Cayman Beneficial Ownership Regime?

Published: 19 Aug 2024
Type: Insight

All Cayman Islands funds (other than unit trusts) are required to identify “required particulars” in relation to their investors and provide those particulars to the Cayman Islands Ministry of Financial Services under the Beneficial Ownership Transparency Act (the Act). Once identified the required particulars must be kept up to date and can be made available to certain government agencies in the Cayman Islands and the United Kingdom but not, as yet, to the public. Our general briefing on the Cayman Beneficial Ownership Regime can be found here.


Registered Funds

Funds that are registered under the Mutual Funds Act (Revised) or the Private Funds Act (Revised) can opt to follow an alternative route to compliance.  This option involves the provision of required particulars and other information only when requested by the Cayman Ministry of Financial Services and Commerce (the Authority).  That information needs to be provided by a contact person that is registered or licensed under a regulatory law and within 24 hours or at such other time as the Authority may specify. To opt in to this alternative requires the fund’s registered office to confirm to the Authority that the fund is registered and to confirm the contact details of the person who will comply with the Authority’s requests.

Unregistered Funds and Funds Opting to Comply

Where a Cayman fund is not registered or where it opts to comply with the Act’s obligations to maintain a beneficial ownership register its registered office will need to file the required particulars with the Authority at least once each month.  This option may be preferable to engaging the fund’s Cayman administrator or registered office to comply with the Authority’s requests within 24 hours.

The required particulars relate to every individual and every Cayman entity (other than trusts) that directly or indirectly holds or controls 25% or more of the equity interests or voting rights of the fund or otherwise controls the fund or its management (excluding professional advisors and managers). If there are no individuals but there is a trust with such a holding or control required particulars of the trustees should be filed if they have ultimate effective control over the activities of the trust other than as professional advisors or managers. Where the trustee is a foreign corporation only its name and details of its contact persons need be filed. If there are no such individuals and no such trustees, contact details of a director of the fund should be filed with the Authority.

The particulars to be filed with the authority for individuals are the name, address, address for service, date of birth, nationality, identity document details, nature of control and the date they became registerable under the Act. For entities these are their name, address, legal form, nature of control, registration number and date they became registerable. Corporations sole, government departments, international organizations of governments and public authorities are treated as individuals for the purposes of the Act and their particulars are their name, address, legal form, jurisdiction and date on which they became registerable.

Guidance issued by the Authority on compliance with the Act provides that where the required particulars of a Cayman entity are included in a fund’s beneficial ownership register there is no need to include any information on the beneficial owners of that Cayman entity which will make its own filings under the Act.  Percentages of equity interests are calculated by reference to beneficial owners’ rights to share in the capital or profits of the fund and not by reference to the number of equity interests held. We would expect that investor registers of Cayman funds will generally include the percentage of the fund’s capital held by each investor but in some cases investor registers may need to be updated to include this information and account may need to be taken of the differing net asset values of different classes and series and whether there are distributing and accumulating classes in the fund. A fund may also be applying simplified due diligence for some investors under their anti-money laundering procedures and will need to reach out to those investors in order to obtain the information required for the fund’s beneficial ownership register.

Before filing the required particulars with the Authority, the fund’s registered office is required to verify the required particulars from reliable sources. Where an investor is required to be added to the beneficial ownership register after their initial subscription this may require the provision of updated certified copy identification and address verification documents to the fund’s registered office.

Steps Required to Comply with the Act

The Act came into force on 31 July 2024 and its provisions will be enforced from 1 January 2025. To prepare for compliance with the Act in time for that deadline funds should ensure that they engage with their registered office service providers and administrators as early as possible to confirm that those service providers are aware of the fund’s responsibilities under the Act and the roles that they will need to fulfil to ensure that the required information is filed with the Authority.

Administration agreements and registered office services agreements may need to be updated to incorporate the provision of beneficial ownership services.  Those services might include obligations to obtain required particulars from investors, to provide persons to act as points of contact with the Authority, to give notices under the Act including restrictions notices, to maintain a current register of required particulars for the fund, to monitor changes in investor’s equity holdings and control of the fund, to report on any missing required particulars and to file required particulars or to provide these with supporting evidence to the fund’s registered office.

Subscription documents should be updated to include details of registered particulars of investors and where applicable their beneficial owners, an obligation to notify the fund’s administrator of any changes to those particulars and representations around control exercised over the fund.

For existing investors where the required particulars are not already held as part of the anti-money laundering due diligence collected for those investors, notices should be sent by the fund’s administrator requiring the provision of the relevant details and verification documents.

Exemptions

Cayman funds that are listed on a recognized stock exchange or that are a subsidiary of an entity listed on such an exchange need only confirm the name and jurisdiction of that exchange to the Authority and are not required to collect, maintain or file required particulars of their investors. A subsidiary for these purposes will have a listed entity (i) holding 75% or more of its shares or voting rights, (ii) exercising ultimate effective control over it (including indirect control through a chain of ownership) or (iii) controlling it by other means.  To avail of this exemption requires that the fund’s registered office confirms to the Authority that the fund is listed or is a subsidiary of a listed entity and the name and jurisdiction of the relevant stock exchange.

Cayman funds that are licensed under the Mutual Funds Act (Revised) or any other Cayman regulatory law need only confirm the regulatory law under which they are licensed.  The use of licensed Cayman funds is rare and these currently account for less than 0.4% of regulated Cayman mutual funds.  To avail of this exemption requires that the fund’s registered office confirms to the Authority the regulatory law under which the fund is licensed.

Notwithstanding the availability of any exemption the Authority is entitled to request information or documents from the fund for the purposes of carrying out its functions under the Act, verifying beneficial ownership information, assisting with the prevention or detection of crime, furthering interests of national security or enabling certain law enforcement, regulatory and other government departments in the Cayman Islands to fulfil their statutory obligations.  Notices from the Authority for these purposes must be complied with within the period and manner specified in the notice.

Availability of Beneficial Ownership Information

The Authority will operate a search platform by means of which certain law enforcement, regulatory and other government departments in the Cayman Islands may be provided with access to information on all beneficial ownership registers maintained under the Act.  In addition, the Authority may search that platform on a formal request of the Financial Crime Unit of the Cayman Islands Police where a senior official of that unit certifies that the search is at the request of a UK law enforcement official in accordance with the agreement entered into between the Cayman Islands and UK governments respecting the sharing of beneficial ownership information.

Beneficial ownership information will not be available to the public under the Act but the Act does allow the Cayman Islands government to make regulations allowing the Authority to provide the public with access to the name, country of residence, nationality, month and year of birth and nature of control of any individual beneficial owner and the name, registered office, legal form, registration number and nature of control of any Cayman entity whose details are maintained on their search platform.

Our Funds and Regulatory Support in the Cayman Islands

Our funds and regulatory teams regularly assist our clients to ensure that they are up to date with current and developing regulation in the Cayman Islands. Our board support services can provide an essential tool to ensure that our funds clients and their directors are kept up to date with and are appropriately addressing 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 legal and regulatory advice, please contact any member of our funds and/or regulatory teams.

Key contacts
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).