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
IWD website preview
9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
3 Mar 2026

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2025/26

The round-up provides a concise yet thorough summary of regulatory developments relevant to financial service providers (FSPs) and other stakeholders in the Cayman Islands. It highlights key legislative changes, publications by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), updates on financial sanctions, and anticipates upcoming changes through "horizon scanning”. Links to the underlying CIMA publications, as well as related Appleby published briefings and e-alerts are available throughout this document. The information provided is “as of” 28 May 2025.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
16 Feb 2026

Preparing for and Managing a CIMA Onsite Inspection

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) is empowered, under the Monetary Authority Act and certain other regulatory laws, to inspect regulated financial service providers (FSP) in the Cayman Islands such as banks, trust companies, administrators, investment managers and virtual asset service providers for compliance with applicable regulatory frameworks. CIMA routinely conducts onsite inspections of such regulated entities – which can be full-scope (involving a review of all areas of a regulated entity's business operations) or thematically focused on specific areas such as corporate governance and/or internal controls, policies and procedures pertaining to AML/CFT/CPF. With the breadth and number of onsite inspections carried out by CIMA having increased through 2024 and 2025 we consider, in this briefing: (i) the CIMA onsite inspection process; (ii) the latest feedback available from CIMA in respect of inspections conducted to date; and (iii) some frequently asked questions in relation to CIMA onsite inspections.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
16 Feb 2026

Injunctive Relief in Another Form? Cayman Court's Jurisdiction to Appoint JPLs Despite Ongoing Arbitration

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [link],[1] the Grand Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators notwithstanding the fact that the company’s shareholders are engaged in an arbitration over its affairs, as mandated by a binding arbitration agreement. This article considers the decision and its implications.

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

When the Court intervenes… and when it does not: Grand Court Reaffirms Limited Curial Intervention in Support of Foreign Arbitrations

The Financial Services Division of the Grand Court’s judgment in In the matter of A v B & C (FSD 270 of 2025) provides a timely reminder of the proper boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals in respect of the grant of interim relief. The decision underscores the Cayman Islands' commitment to the principle of limited curial intervention and confirms that the Court’s powers under section 54 of the Arbitration Act 2012 are ancillary to the arbitral process and are only to be exercised when the tribunal cannot provide effective relief itself. The judgment helpfully sets out clear parameters for those seeking ancillary relief and highlights that the Cayman courts will support arbitration proceedings without supplanting them.

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.

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