Why so Seri(e)ous? Cayman Series Partnerships in fund finance transactions

Published: 18 Oct 2023
Type: Insight

Funds make use of series partnerships across jurisdictions to allow for segregation of partnership interests, assets, distributions and operations into separate series or classes[1]. A particular quirk of Cayman series partnerships (“CSP”), however, is that they are not statutory entities[2] and instead exist solely as a matter of contract. It is therefore very important for lenders to understand how this structure differs from statutory series vehicles and how this might impact a financing.


An overview of Cayman Series Partnerships

The purely contractual arrangement of a CSP means that the segregation of assets and/or liabilities of different series of interests arises solely pursuant to the terms of the limited partnership agreement (LPA).  As the series structure is contractual, it is effective as between the partners.  It is not, however, effective in relation to third parties (such as creditors) in the absence of limited recourse language limiting the recourse of such third parties to the assets relevant to a particular series.

As with all series or segregated portfolio vehicles, the separation of the series interests can be fairly limited (e.g. relating only to how distributions are calculated as between series), or can impact a much wider range of the financials and day to day operations of the CSP (e.g. where only certain series are permitted to borrow or grant security) and this will ultimately be dictated by the commercial rationale for establishing the fund as a CSP. It follows that CSPs in finance transactions can be very straightforward and make minimal difference to the usual financing approaches or, at the other extreme, they can be fairly complicated and nuanced, requiring certain bespoke amendments to the facility documentation that needs to be approached on a case by case basis.

Lender considerations in relation to CSPs as obligors

A lender will need to confirm the following points when entering into a financing involving a CSP obligor:

  • Whether the CSP is entering into the transaction (i) for the general account of the CSP, which will usually make the analysis fairly straightforward, or (ii) on behalf of specific series, in which case it can get more complicated.
  • Where the transaction is being entered into on behalf of individual series, whether every series is participating in the transaction (i.e. borrowing and/or granting security), or only certain series.
  • Whether it is anticipated that the CSP will have different third-party creditors at a later date, potentially to other series of the CSP.

If there will be subsequent creditors to different series, secured parties will need to be focused on steps relating to perfection and priority, to minimize any risk of issues arising if a subsequent lender does not have adequate notice of the series structure and ring-fencing of assets. It is worth noting that under Cayman Islands law, a secured creditor can generally enforce security without the need for court involvement (even if the security provider is subject to insolvency proceedings) so, assuming that security has been properly taken and perfected, enforcement against the assets of specific series of a CSP should not present an issue for a lender.

Lenders will also need to consider the recourse arrangements outside of the strict security package analysis. In a subscription facility, for example, although the capital commitments are looked to as the primary source of repayment, the loans are generally still fully recourse to the assets of the fund, so lenders will need to consider how recourse to a series and general CSP assets is to be dealt with beyond the capital commitments analysis.

Additional lender protections for CSP financings

In connection with documenting a facility with a CSP, secured parties should consider whether series-specific restrictions are appropriate. It is not unusual to include ongoing representations as to various statements of fact relating to the operating of the series to address additional lender risks related to a CSP.  We often see a representation confirming that the general partner has taken all actions necessary to create and maintain the applicable series, and that any creditor in respect of liabilities attributable to any other series shall not have recourse in respect of those debts to the assets of the current series.

Additional covenants are often included as well, for example a requirement for the general partner to ensure that (i) assets and liabilities are not transferred between different series, and (ii) any creditor in respect of liabilities attributable either to any other series or to the general account of the CSP shall be on notice that they do not have recourse in respect of those debts to the assets of the current series. There may also be restrictions in relation to the creation of new series.

LPA diligence involving CSPs

Lenders will need to closely review the LPA to confirm how the CSP’s series structure works to ensure that the LPA actually segregates assets and accounts in a way that is consistent with (i) the commercial intention of the parties, and (ii) the proposed financing and security arrangements. Some LPAs may include limitations as to whether a CSP can only borrow on a series by series basis, or prohibit borrowing on a joint and several basis as between series, which can impact how the borrowing base is established and how the financing is structured.

Winding up considerations

The LPA for a CSP may include a process for winding up a specific series, and such provisions are often included for consistency with the US-fund documents. As CSPs are not creatures of statute, parties should properly consider the consequences of a proposed winding up of a particular series. Care needs to be taken in drafting and consideration given to whether these provisions would be recognized by Cayman courts, given the lack of statutory segregation, particularly when these terms are to align provisions of a wider fund structure.

Lender considerations in relation to CSPs as pledged entities

Additional considerations arise again when the CSP itself is the pledged entity. Given that there is no statutory segregation of assets for a CSP, in the event of insolvency, the assets of a specific series will not be ring-fenced and will form part of the CSP’s general assets. This is an important factor to consider when a lender has taken security over an LP interest that is assigned to a particular series, as ultimately the value assigned to such a series could be significantly adjusted if the contractual series structure collapses.

Conclusion

The use of a CSP can offer benefits to investors, but lenders and secured creditors need to be conscious of the limitations of these structures as a matter of Cayman law, given the lack of statutory recognition.

This article was first featured in the Cadwalader: Fund Finance Friday – October 13 2023 edition. 

[1] Referred to as “series” for the purpose of this article.

[2] Unlike, for example, a Delaware Series LLC or series partnership, or the Cayman segregated portfolio company.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

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.