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-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.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
23 Jun 2026

Important Cayman Islands Industry Advisory: Common Reporting Standard 2.0 and Economic Substance Updates

Further to the introduction of the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (the CRS Amendment Regulations or CRS 2.0), the Cayman Islands Department for International Tax Cooperation (DITC) has issued an Industry Advisory flagging certain key updates in respect of Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and Economic Substance (ES) reporting in the Cayman Islands. Cayman Financial Institutions will be required file 2025 CRS Returns and Declarations by 31 July 2026, ahead of the online DITC Portal’s closure to facilitate its transition to XML Schema v3.0. ES courtesy reminders (which have historically been sent by email to designated Responsible Persons in advance of annual ES reporting deadlines) will no longer be issued such that Relevant Entities will need to independently track such deadlines themselves. Updated Individual and Entity CRS Self-Certification forms, aligned with CRS 2.0, are now available online via the DITC website.

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

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

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [2026] CIGC (FSD) 22, the Grand Court clarified the scope of joint provisional liquidators' powers following their appointment. In particular, the Court confirmed that the appointment of provisional liquidators does not automatically displace existing directors.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
17 Jun 2026

Property, Fairness and the Constitution: The Grand Court Marks the Boundaries of Freedom of Information

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has overturned a decision of the Ombudsman in a successful judicial review brought by Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. (CUC), represented by Appleby.

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