Private equity funds in the Cayman Islands

From Mourant Ozannes

Introduction

This briefing explains the attractions for international managers, sponsors and investors of the Cayman Islands as the jurisdiction in which to domicile a private equity fund.

The terms “private equity” and “closed-ended” are often used interchangeably, principally to differentiate funds of this type from “hedge” or “alternative” funds which invest in liquid assets and give investors the option to redeem their investments on regular liquidity dates.

The term “private equity fund” commonly denotes a non-retail fund investing in illiquid assets and, whilst used most frequently in

the context of a typical buyout fund, covers a range of funds including real estate funds, venture capital funds, infrastructure funds, credit opportunity and other debt funds, secondary funds and funds of funds.

Private equity/closed-ended funds established in the Cayman Islands normally take the form of limited partnerships (which will be the focus of this briefing) although sometimes are formed as companies.

Mourant Ozannes’ Cayman funds advisory team advises managers, sponsors and investors globally on all aspects of law and regulation pertaining to the structuring and operation of investment funds in the Cayman Islands.

Regulatory overview

Regulation of investment funds in the Cayman Islands is governed by the Mutual Funds Law of the Cayman Islands although this only applies to open-ended funds. Consequently, closed-ended funds such as private equity funds are not subject to regulatory oversight by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. In addition, the fund’s general partner does not require any form of approval or licensing in the

Cayman Islands.

Exempted limited partnerships

An exempted limited partnership (“ELP”), the typical vehicle of choice for a private equity fund domiciled in the Cayman Islands, is formed under, and subject to, the Exempted Limited Partnership Law of the Cayman Islands (the “ELP Law”). The ELP Law adopts principles similar to those enshrined in the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, and this similarity with the Delaware model makes the ELP particularly attractive to managers and investors in the US. The key provisions of the ELP Law are summarised below.

There are no capital gains, income, withholding, estate or inheritance taxes in the Cayman Islands. The ELP will apply for (and can expect to obtain) an undertaking

from the Cayman Islands government that no form of taxation that may be introduced in the Cayman Islands will apply to the ELP for a period of 50 years from the undertaking being given (hence the ELP’s “exempted” status).

Key features

An ELP does not have a legal personality of its own (notwithstanding its registration in the Cayman Islands) and is, to this extent, a combination of contractual rights and equitable interests in the assets of the ELP which are held on trust for the partnership by the general partner (and, if there is more than one, by the general partners jointly) and in accordance with the terms of the limited partnership agreement (the “LPA”).

The general partner (the “GP”) is the operative legal entity, responsible for managing the business of the ELP and ultimately liable for all debts and obligations of the ELP to the extent that the ELP has insufficient assets. The GP will sign all contracts on behalf and in the name of the ELP. The GP must be either a Cayman resident individual, a Cayman registered company, a foreign company registered in Cayman or another ELP. No additional licences or approvals will be required for the GP, and the GP may have any number of directors who will not be required to be resident in Cayman or to meet in Cayman.

Not having its own legal personality, the ELP is generally regarded from an onshore tax perspective as being tax transparent (or as having “see-through”, “look-through” or “flow-though” status, which signify the same thing) with the effect that the ELP itself will not be liable to any onshore taxes, and value distributed by it will “flow-through” to the investors (and may be subject to local taxes in their hands).

There are no restrictions on the number of investors that may be admitted to an ELP.

Registration of an ELP and GP can take place on a same-day basis, with the certificates of registration following within three to five working days (a fast track process delivering the certificate in around 48 hours is also available). Government registration fees for the ELP and GP together at a minimum will fall in the region of US$2,000.

The ELP Law

The ELP is essentially a creature of contract, and is formed by the signing of an LPA by the GP and by at least one limited partner. At this point, the LPA will often be a short- form document and will be accompanied

by a “Section 9 Statement” made by the GP confirming certain basic details about the ELP and lodged with the Registrar of Limited Partnerships in the Cayman Islands. A short- form LPA can be restated into the full-blown agreement, in accordance with the terms of which investors will be admitted into the partnership.

The GP and the limited partners may agree between themselves the terms governing the partnership, subject to a relatively light overlay of statutory provisions contained in the ELP Law. Some of the provisions of the ELP Law are mandatory, and some can be varied or waived in the LPA.

The following provisions of the ELP Law are mandatory:

• The ELP’s name must include the letters

“LP” or the words “Limited Partnership”.

• The ELP must have a registered office in the Cayman Islands, for service of process and forwarding of notices and communications.
• The ELP cannot undertake business with the public in the Cayman Islands (other than as may be necessary for the carrying on of its business outside the Islands); this is the basis on which the ELP obtains its “exempted” status.
• The GP must act at all times in good faith in the interests of the ELP.
• The GP is liable for any debts and obligations of the ELP if the ELP’s assets are insufficient to discharge them. Any debt or obligation incurred by the GP in the conduct of the ELP’s business shall be treated as a debt or obligation of the ELP. Any property of the ELP conveyed to the ELP or to its GP will be deemed to be held by the GP on trust for the ELP as an asset of the ELP.
• A limited partner may not participate in the conduct of the ELP’s business, and all contractual documents and papers must be executed by the GP as the contractual party acting on behalf of the ELP. Any limited partner participating in this way,

as though it were a general partner, will be liable for the debts and obligations of the ELP, if it goes insolvent, to any person transacting business with the ELP through the limited partner and who had actual knowledge of such limited partner’s participation and who reasonably

believed that limited partner to be a general partner.

• The ELP Law set outs certain non- exhaustive “safe harbours” of activities in which a limited partner may engage without risk of losing its limited liability

status. The LPA may nonetheless provide for any amount of limited partner participation in the conduct of the

ELP’s business (commensurate with the potential liability just noted). A limited partner’s participation on an advisory board or investment committee will typically be within the safe harbours.

• A limited partner that receives any return of its contributed capital in a period of

six months prior to the ELP becoming insolvent will be liable to return the amount received (to the extent that it is needed in whole or in part to discharge a debt or obligation of the ELP incurred

during the period that the capital amount in question was an asset of the ELP), together with simple interest at an annual rate of 10% (or other rate specified in the LPA).

• A limited partner may transfer all or any part of its partnership interest in the manner provided by the LPA, but such transfer shall not absolve the transferor of any liability previously incurred in respect of (i) its taking part in the conduct of the ELP’s business, or (ii) amounts of capital received and required to be returned (both as described above).
• An ELP shall continue until wound up and dissolved by resolution of the general partners and a two-thirds majority of limited partners, unless the LPA provides otherwise; and the provisions of the Companies Law and the Companies Winding Up Rules shall apply to govern the winding up and dissolution of an ELP (except to the extent that such provisions are inconsistent with the ELP Law).
• If, following the ELP’s registration, any change is made to its name, the general nature of its business, its registered office address, its duration or the name and address of its GP (or one of them), the

GP must file with the Registrar of Limited Partnerships a statement of the change within 60 days of its occurrence.

• The GP must maintain or cause to be maintained at the ELP’s registered office in the Cayman Islands a register of partnership interests in the ELP (which must be updated within 21 days of any change) and a register of mortgages and charges on partnership interests. The register of partnership interests is not open to inspection by a non-partner unless the general partner consents, whereas the mortgages register is. Both registers may be maintained in written or electronic form.

Certain other key provisions of the ELP Law are non-mandatory or non-prescriptive in effect, and may be adopted or varied in the LPA as may be agreed between the partners, for example:

• The limited partners will not be liable for any debts and obligations of the ELP if the ELP’s assets are insufficient to discharge them.
• The ELP Law provides that a limited partner may demand and receive from the GP information about the ELP’s business and financial condition, but

the LPA may waive or vary this provision (subject to the obligation of an open- ended partnership registered with CIMA to prepare accounts and have them audited).

• A GP or limited partner may contract with, or lend money to, the ELP qua partner

or otherwise, subject to the inviolable duty of the GP to act in good faith in the interests of the ELP and to any debt owed by the ELP to a GP transacting in such manner ranking behind the ELP’s other creditors (secured or unsecured).

• No capital commitment is required of the GP or of a limited partner (although the LPA will typically provide for such); contributions may be made in cash, property or other assets (but not by way of loan by a partner to the ELP).
• The GP may take an interest in the ELP as

a limited partner in addition to its interest as GP.

• The ELP Law provides, subject to any provision of the LPA to the contrary, that the ELP shall be automatically dissolved

on the expiration of 90 days following the service, by or on behalf of, the sole or last remaining GP of notice of the GP’s death, bankruptcy, dissolution, winding up, withdrawal or removal, unless a majority

of partners (or other majority specified in the LPA) elects within that 90 day period to appoint one or more new general partners.

Save as mentioned above, the LPA may

contain such terms as may be agreed between the general partner and the limited partners.

Side letters

The GP of an ELP may enter into side letters with individual investors to provide for contractual arrangements additional to those contained in the LPA. It is common for investors entering into side letters to demand most favoured nation (“MFN”) clauses guaranteeing them the same rights extended to other recipients of side letters. These arrangements are unobjectionable under Cayman Islands law, but the normal

steps must be taken to ensure that the terms of a side letter (and any MFN arrangements) are not in contravention of, or inconsistent with, the terms of the LPA. Nothing in the side arrangements can be allowed to prevent the GP from discharging its obligation under Cayman Islands law to act at all times in the good faith and in the best interests of the fund as a whole.

Consideration should be given to making specific provision in the LPA for the GP to enter into side arrangements with individual investors within specified parameters. In all cases, Cayman Islands legal advice should be sought.

Legal opinions

A legal opinion will typically be required from the fund’s onshore and offshore legal advisors. The offshore opinion will be addressed to the investors and will speak to the valid formation and good standing in the Cayman Islands

of the ELP and its GP the ability of the ELP (acting by the GP) to enter into the LPA and other documentation, the enforceability of the LPA and other documentation and the enforceability of the obligations thereunder of the GP.

Exempted limited companies

The contractual flexibility of the LPA and the relatively light statutory overlay of the ELP Law combine to ensure that the ELP is the vehicle of choice for managers choosing Cayman as the domicile for their private equity fund. It

is possible, however, to use a Cayman Islands exempted limited company as the fund vehicle and to largely (if not entirely) replicate the mechanics of an LPA in the company’s articles of association, often in tandem with an

LPA-style shareholders’agreement.

The articles will require careful drafting to replicate limited partnership mechanisms, and the following is illustrative of the issues requiring consideration:

• Capital calls can be effected in one of two ways: (i) partly paid shares are issued in respect of the first closing, with provision for additional sums to be paid on those shares on each subsequent closing or capital call; or (ii) fully paid shares equal

to amount of capital called at first closing are issued, with additional fully paid shares being issued for each subsequent closing or capital call. The difficulty with approach (i) is that partly-paid shares cannot be repurchased by the company as a matter of Cayman Islands law, which causes difficulties (for example) when enforcing forfeiture provisions against a defaulting limited partner. Additionally, partly-paid shares must be allocated a distinguishing number in the company’s books, which places an administrative burden on the company’s directors or administrator.

• Capital accounting can be replicated by including in the articles a mechanism

for tracking additions and subtractions from each investor’s capital account, but this is generally more difficult than

using the contractual flexibility of an LPA. The directors of a corporate fund will be under an obligation to treat all shares in

a class identically, and this complicates the scenario in which an investor has

to be treated differently (for example when it becomes a defaulting partner,

or when its participation in distributions differs contractually from that of other investors). Whilst it is conceptually possible to make provision in the

articles for the variation of economic entitlements attaching to a share of

any class without prior sanction by class consent or other corporate action, the mechanics will be more cumbersome than those customarily found in an LPA.

• Interest payments made by additional partners being admitted in subsequent closings can be implemented by the establishment in the company’s books of

a separate class account for each investor, in order to enable interest payments

by incoming investors to be allocated amongst existing investors.

• Claw-back provisions are possible, but more difficult, to draft in articles of association.

The tax transparency of a Cayman Islands company can be achieved for US managers and US non-taxable investors by means of the “check the box” procedure, the broad effect of which will be that the company (whether a standalone fund, master fund or feeder fund) will be treated as a partnership for US tax purposes. That said, the same managers and investors may well be more familiar with an ELP and it may be more acceptable (not to mention cost effective) to use an ELP as the pooling vehicle, with corporate “blocker” vehicles being established to cater for investors with specific regulatory and tax considerations.

Conclusion

The tax exempt, tax transparent, non- regulated and highly flexible nature of the ELP and the absence of regulatory or licensing requirements touching the general partner, together with the flexibility of the Cayman Islands exempted limited company, combine to make the Cayman Islands the pre-eminent jurisdiction for offshore private equity funds. From its offices in the Cayman Islands, Mourant Ozannes’ Cayman funds advisory team is well placed to assist managers, sponsors and investors with all aspects of Cayman law and regulation pertaining to investment funds.

Contacts:

Cayman Islands

Neal Lomax, Managing Partner, Cayman Islands

+1 345 814 9131 [email protected]

James Wauchope, Partner

+1 345 814 9117 [email protected]

Julian Fletcher, Partner

+1 345 814 9122 [email protected]

 

Europe

Robert Duggan, Partner

+44 20 7796 7622 [email protected]

 

Asia

Alex Last, Partner

+852 3995 5703 [email protected]

END

Image: articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

Grenadians urged to accept sacrifices to rebuild economy – Mitchell

From Caribbean360

ST. JOHN’S, Antigua, Friday July 4, 2014, CMC – Grenada’s Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell Thursday urged support for a proposal seeking to reduce the debt owed to the National Insurance Scheme under the same terms and conditions being proposed to international creditors.

Mitchell, speaking to reporters here, said that while his administration is fully aware of the important role of the NIS the request for the haircut must be put in the context of the island seeking assistance to deal with its debt burden, “…we have also understood in the process of going forward with our structural adjustment programme and asking everyone regionally and internationally to help us and provide some haircut that we must in fact ask our own (to do the same).

“The question therefore is how do we go forward. So we will be working with the NIS…and the workers and unions and all concerned to ensure that nothing is done to reduce the capacity of the NIS to meet its fundamental responsibilities,” he said.

The Technical and Allied Workers Union (TAWU) has already said it would not support the government after Communications and Works Minister Gregory Bowen confirmed that the Mitchell administration would seek the haircut as part of debt restructuring initiative.

The amount of money owed to the NIS has not been disclosed but it represents workers’ contributions the government has failed to pay over the years.

“Our union understands the fiscal difficulties faced by the State and the challenges that confront the country but the debt to the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) cannot be equated to the debt to the commercial banks or other financial institutions,” TAWU said in a statement, adding that workers were already making great sacrifices by the payment of increased taxation as family income continues to fall and the unemployment rate continues to rise.

TAWU described the NIS as “sacred territory” and called on the called on the Grenada Trades Union Council (GTUC) “to resolutely resist all attempts to cut Government indebtedness to the NIS and this must be clearly understood by all”.

However, the business sector representative in the Senate Christopher De Allie believes that government is taking the right approach because it will be unfair to ask international creditors for a haircut and not local lenders.

“There is need to have equity with all lenders,” De Allie said.

Mitchell told reporters that the decision of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to approve a US$21.9 million structural adjustment programme for the island last week, would help in the payment of outstanding arrears to many creditors.

The government announced Thursday that the World Bank had already approved US$15 million for Grenada and Mitchell said “this is further evidence of the confidence of the international community in Grenada’s policies, especially as regarding the homegrown programme”.

He said one of the conditions for the funds to Grenada is that “we must pay some of the suppliers of services to our country which over the last two, three years have not been paid so a lot of business in the country have provided services to the government over the past two or three years and have not been paid”.

Mitchell said that some of these businesses have had to use overdraft facilities which are very expensive and “therefore we have to meet our responsibility.

“In doing so that will be a big plus for us because it will release some disposal income in the country as a whole and help businesses and others to take additional initiatives and expand economic opportunities in the country.

“So we will be paying off some of the local debt and some of our regional organisations like the Supreme Court of the OECS, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat, the OECS Secretariat and a number of regional and international institutions that we have reneged on our responsibilities…”

Mitchell, who is attending the annual summit of the CARICOM leaders here, said his administration would also be establishing a number of programmes involving the private sector and the trade union including a housing programme to “’aid the development of house repair programme in the country and soft loans for people to expand their homes.

“In some cases looking at building low income houses for people…and there are many other programmes including small business development,” he told reporters.

IMAGE: Dr.Keith-Mitchell

For more on this story go to: http://www.caribbean360.com/business/anthony-agonises-over-ways-to-cut-st-lucia-fiscal-deficit?utm_source=Caribbean360%20Newsletters&utm_campaign=671d95d06e-Vol_7_Issue_026_Business7_4_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_350247989a-671d95d06e-39393477