The advent of blockchain technology presents unprecedented opportunities for tokenizing real-world assets (RWAs) and launching innovative financial products. However, companies in this space face unique challenges: the need for iterative product development, robust liability protection, secure management of diverse asset classes, and instilling investor confidence. This white paper explores why the Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) has emerged as a leading corporate structure to address these multifaceted requirements. We delve into the architecture of the SPC, its inherent benefits such as statutory segregation of assets and liabilities, cost-efficiency for multi-product platforms, and its adaptability to various asset types including global equities, debt, and real estate. This paper contrasts the SPC with alternative structures, providing a balanced view of its advantages and limitations. Furthermore, it details the practical aspects of establishing an SPC and its individual segregated portfolios, offering a blueprint for blockchain entrepreneurs and asset managers looking to build scalable, secure, and compliant on-chain ventures.
Table of Contents
- Requirements for Blockchain Ventures
- The Cayman SPC
- Why SPCs are Ideal for On-Chain Platforms
- Alternative Structures
- SPC Advantages: A Comparison
- SPC Limitations
- Setting Up a Cayman SPC
- Launching Segregated Portfolios
- SPCs for Tokenization
- Conclusion
- Disclaimer
1. Requirements for Blockchain Asset Ventures
The emergence of blockchain technology and the concept of tokenizing real-world assets (RWAs) are rapidly transforming the financial landscape. Companies venturing into this innovative domain aim to unlock liquidity, enhance transparency, and create novel investment opportunities by bringing assets like global equities, debt instruments, and real estate onto the blockchain. However, these pioneering efforts come with a unique set of operational, legal, and strategic requirements that traditional corporate structures may not adequately address.
1.1 Iterative Product Development
The digital asset space is characterized by rapid innovation and evolving market demands. It is highly unlikely that a company's first on-chain product or tokenized asset will be its ultimate success story. Instead, businesses must adopt an agile, iterative approach, launching multiple products or asset-backed tokens to test market fit, gather user feedback, and adapt accordingly. This necessitates a corporate structure that allows for the quick, efficient, and cost-effective rollout of new, distinct "product lines" or "mini-funds" without the burdensome process of establishing entirely new legal entities for each iteration. Each new product may have its own risk profile, investor base, and operational nuances.
1.2 Liability Segregation
With multiple products, potentially varying in risk, it is paramount to protect the viability of the overall venture and its individual successes from the potential failure of one product. If one tokenized asset or on-chain fund underperforms or incurs significant liabilities (e.g., due to market volatility, smart contract vulnerabilities, or specific counterparty risks), those liabilities should not spill over to infect other, healthier asset pools within the same overarching company. Builders and promoters of these platforms require a robust shield to protect their core enterprise and the investments in successful products from the contagion of isolated failures. Likewise, investors in a specific tokenized asset need assurance that their investment is ring-fenced from the risks associated with other assets offered by the same platform.
1.3 External Management
As a blockchain venture grows, it may identify opportunities to leverage specialized expertise for managing particular asset classes. For instance, a company might excel in tokenizing global equities but may wish to bring on an external, specialist manager for a new debt product or a real estate-backed token. The chosen corporate structure must facilitate the clean and clear delegation of management responsibility for a specific asset pool to a third party. Crucially, any liabilities arising from the actions (or inactions) of this external manager should be contained within the specific asset pool they manage, protecting the core building team and other asset pools from associated risks.
1.4 Investor Protection
Investor trust is the bedrock of any financial venture, and this is especially true in the often-nascent and rapidly evolving world of digital assets. Investors need strong assurances that their funds are being managed according to the stated objectives and that there are safeguards against mismanagement or misappropriation. While blockchain can offer transparency, the legal structure underpinning the venture must reinforce this. This includes clear rules on how funds are handled, how assets are valued and audited, and mechanisms to prevent unauthorized movement of capital. The structure should support good governance and provide a framework for accountability.
1.5 Diverse Assets
The ambition of many blockchain ventures is to tokenize a wide array of underlying assets – from liquid global equities and diverse debt instruments to illiquid assets like real estate projects. Each asset class comes with its own lifecycle, risk factors, regulatory considerations, and investor appeal. The ideal corporate structure should be flexible enough to accommodate this diversity under a single operational umbrella while maintaining clear distinctions and segregation between each asset type or investment strategy. This ensures clean bookkeeping, targeted investor communication, and tailored risk management for each distinct product.
Meeting these requirements demands a sophisticated yet agile corporate structuring solution. The Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) has increasingly been recognized as a powerful tool to address these precise needs.
2. The Cayman SPC
The Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, has long been a leading international financial center, renowned for its sophisticated legal framework, tax neutrality, and expertise in structuring investment vehicles. Among its various corporate offerings, the Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) stands out as an innovative and highly effective structure, particularly well-suited for the complexities of modern financial ventures, including those in the burgeoning blockchain and digital asset space.
2.1 What is an SPC?
Imagine a company that can create multiple, distinct "sub-funds" or "portfolios" within itself, each operating almost as if it were a separate business line, yet all under the umbrella of a single registered company. This is, in essence, what an SPC is. A Segregated Portfolio Company is a type of Cayman Islands exempted company that is permitted by the Companies Law to create one or more segregated portfolios. The primary purpose of these portfolios is to segregate the assets and liabilities attributable to one portfolio from the assets and liabilities of any other portfolio and from the SPC's general (non-portfolio) assets and liabilities. Each segregated portfolio can have its own specific investment strategy, its own investors (shareholders who own shares specifically designated to that portfolio), and its own distinct pool of assets. However, legally, the SPC remains a single corporate entity. The segregated portfolios themselves are not separate legal entities.
2.2 Statutory Segregation
The defining feature of an SPC, and its most significant advantage, is the concept of "statutory segregation." This isn't just a contractual agreement between parties; it's a principle enshrined in Cayman Islands law (specifically, Part XIV of the Companies Law (as revised)). Statutory segregation means that:
- Assets of a Portfolio are Protected: The assets of a particular segregated portfolio (let's call it "SP A") are only available to meet the liabilities of the creditors of SP A. Creditors of another portfolio ("SP B") or creditors of the SPC's general business cannot access the assets of SP A.
- Liabilities are Contained: Similarly, liabilities incurred by SP A are the responsibility of SP A alone. They do not "leak" over to affect SP B or the SPC's general assets. This creates a powerful "ring-fence" around each segregated portfolio, offering a level of protection against cross-contamination of risks and liabilities that is difficult to achieve with standard company structures without resorting to creating multiple, entirely separate legal entities. The directors of an SPC have a statutory duty to establish and maintain procedures to ensure this segregation is upheld, including keeping assets and liabilities of each SP separate and identifiable.
2.3 Historical Evolution
The SPC concept wasn't initially designed for general investment funds. Its origins lie in the insurance industry, particularly in the context of "rent-a-captive" insurance structures. Insurance companies needed a way to segregate different insurance programs (portfolios of risk) so that the capital supporting one program wasn't exposed to claims from another. The SPC legislation, first introduced in the Cayman Islands in 1998, provided an elegant solution. It allowed insurance managers to offer participation in distinct insurance programs to different clients under a single corporate umbrella, with each program's assets and liabilities statutorily protected from the others.
2.4 Adoption in Finance
The inherent benefits of the SPC structure, particularly the robust segregation of assets and liabilities, quickly became apparent to the broader investment fund industry. Fund managers realized that SPCs were an ideal vehicle for:
- Multi-Strategy Funds: A single SPC could house different investment strategies in separate segregated portfolios. For instance, one SP could focus on long/short equity, another on global macro, and a third on distressed debt, all within the same SPC but with each strategy's performance and risk isolated.
- Multi-Class Funds: Different share classes, each linked to a specific portfolio of assets or offering different fee structures/liquidity terms, could be managed more effectively and with greater investor protection within an SPC.
- Umbrella Funds and Fund Platforms: SPCs became a popular choice for creating "umbrella funds" or platforms that allowed for the efficient launch of multiple sub-funds over time, catering to different investor needs or market opportunities, without the cost and administrative burden of setting up a new company each time. This use case is particularly relevant to the needs of modern blockchain ventures.
2.5 SPCs in Digital Assets
As the digital asset industry matured, participants began seeking established, reputable, and flexible legal structures to house their innovative products. The Cayman SPC, with its proven track record in traditional finance for segregating diverse asset pools and managing multi-faceted platforms, naturally emerged as a compelling option. Blockchain companies looking to launch multiple tokenized assets or on-chain funds found the SPC's core features highly attractive:
- Risk Mitigation for Diverse Tokens: The ability to launch different tokens (e.g., one backed by real estate, another by a portfolio of equities) within separate SPs, each ring-fenced, was a major draw.
- Platform Scalability: The ease of adding new SPs allows for rapid iteration and expansion of product offerings.
- Investor Confidence: The statutory segregation provides a level of assurance to investors that their capital in one tokenized product is protected from issues in another. Service providers in the Cayman Islands have also adapted, offering expertise in applying the SPC framework to the unique aspects of digital assets, including custody solutions and considerations for on-chain governance. While still an evolving area, the fundamental principles of the SPC provide a strong foundation.
3. Why SPCs are Ideal for On-Chain Platforms
For blockchain-based companies aiming to bring a diverse range of assets on-chain, the Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) offers a compelling suite of features that directly address their most pressing structural needs. Its unique blend of liability protection, operational efficiency, and flexibility makes it a standout choice, arguably superior to many alternatives when assessed against the specific requirements of these modern ventures.
3.1 Liability Shielding
This is the cornerstone of the SPC's appeal. As discussed, the statutory ring-fencing provided under Cayman Islands law ensures that the assets and liabilities of one segregated portfolio (SP) are legally distinct from those of any other SP within the same company, and also from the SPC's general (non-portfolio) assets.
- Practical Implication for On-Chain Assets: Imagine an SPC launches "Tokenized Equity SP" and "Tokenized Debt SP." If the Debt SP faces unforeseen challenges, perhaps due to defaults in its underlying debt instruments, the creditors of the Debt SP can only lay claim to the assets held within that specific Debt SP. They generally cannot seize assets belonging to the Equity SP, nor can they target the SPC's core operational funds (its general assets), provided these are properly segregated and distinct. This robust separation is crucial in the volatile and innovative crypto space where new products are tested, and not all will succeed. It allows entrepreneurs to innovate more freely, knowing that a setback in one area won't necessarily cripple the entire enterprise or other successful product lines.
3.2 Builder and Investor Protection
The liability protection extends in multiple directions:
- Protecting the Core Venture (Builders): The promoters and operators of the blockchain platform (the "builders") benefit because the SPC structure helps contain risks at the individual SP level. This reduces the likelihood that a problem in one product line could lead to the insolvency of the entire parent company. As shareholders in the SPC, their liability is generally limited to their investment in the SPC itself.
- Protecting Investors in Specific Products: Investors who choose to invest in, for example, "Real Estate Token SP" are assured that their investment is tied to the performance and risks of that specific real estate portfolio. Their returns won't be diluted by losses in, say, a "Global Equities SP," and their capital is shielded from creditors of other, unrelated SPs. This clarity and security are vital for attracting investment, especially in newer asset classes.
3.3 Facilitating External Management
Blockchain ventures often need to tap into specialized expertise for managing different on-chain asset classes. An SPC structure is ideally suited for this.
- Clear Delegation and Accountability: A specific SP can be established with an investment strategy to be executed by an external asset manager. The contractual arrangements with this external manager can clearly state that their mandate, and any associated liabilities from their management of those assets, pertain only to that designated SP. The directors of the SPC have a duty to ensure that such contracts are correctly attributed.
- Risk Isolation: If the external manager underperforms or makes an error leading to losses within their managed SP, the financial repercussions are, in principle, confined to that SP. This protects the other SPs (managed internally or by other external managers) and the SPC's general assets from being tainted by issues arising from one specific external management relationship. This allows the core team to leverage best-in-class expertise for different product lines without taking on unmitigated enterprise-wide risk.
3.4 Investor Confidence
While statutory segregation is key, the SPC framework also supports strong governance, which is crucial for investor protection concerning the proper handling and routing of funds.
- Clear Documentation: Each SP will typically have its investment objectives, policies, and risk factors detailed in a specific offering document supplement. This provides transparency to investors about where their money is going and how it will be managed.
- Director Duties: Directors of an SPC are under statutory duties to act in the best interests of the company and to establish and maintain procedures for the proper segregation of assets and liabilities. They must also ensure that any transfers of assets between SPs, or between an SP and the general assets, occur at full value, preventing arbitrary commingling or value extraction.
- Regulatory Oversight (for Registered Funds): If the SPC operates as a CIMA-registered mutual fund or private fund, it becomes subject to additional regulatory requirements regarding fund administration, valuation, custody of assets, and audits. These regulatory layers provide further checks and balances, bolstering investor protection against fraudulent routing or misuse of funds. Independent directors are often a requirement, adding another layer of oversight.
3.5 Operational Efficiency
Compared to setting up a new, standalone company for every product or tokenized asset, the SPC model offers significant operational and cost advantages.
- Reduced Setup Costs for New Products: Creating a new SP is generally less expensive and administratively lighter than incorporating an entirely new company. This involves board resolutions and supplementing existing documentation rather than a full new incorporation process.
- Lower Ongoing Administrative Burden: While each SP requires separate accounting, the overall SPC shares a single board of directors (though SP-specific committees can exist), a single registered office, and often a common set of core service providers (like auditors and administrators, albeit with scope defined per SP). This consolidation reduces duplicative overheads.
- Economies of Scale: As the platform grows and adds more SPs, it can leverage economies of scale with its service providers. Annual government fees for SPs are also typically lower than for maintaining multiple separate exempted companies.
3.6 Asset Versatility
SPCs are asset-agnostic. They are inherently flexible and can be used to house a wide variety of asset types, making them perfect for platforms that aim to tokenize global equities, debt instruments, real estate, commodities, or even more esoteric digital assets. Each SP can be tailored with an investment strategy appropriate for its underlying asset class, allowing for a diversified platform under a single, coherent legal structure. This adaptability is crucial for businesses looking to explore various on-chain opportunities.
3.7 The Cayman Advantage
The choice of jurisdiction is fundamental. The Cayman Islands offers:
- Tax Neutrality: There are no corporate income tax, capital gains tax, withholding tax, or other direct taxes levied on SPCs or their shareholders in the Cayman Islands. This tax-efficient environment is highly attractive for international financial ventures.
- Established and Respected Legal Framework: The Cayman Islands' legal system is based on English common law, providing a robust, well-understood, and predictable framework. It has a sophisticated judiciary and a large ecosystem of experienced legal and financial professionals. This legal maturity provides a degree of certainty and reliability that is essential for financial innovation. The specific legislation governing SPCs is well-developed and has been tested.
The SPC, therefore, provides a compelling, almost purpose-built solution for the dynamic and multifaceted world of on-chain asset tokenization and multi-product blockchain ventures.
4. Alternative Structures
While the Cayman SPC presents a robust solution, it's important for blockchain entrepreneurs to understand the broader landscape of available corporate structures. Each alternative has its own characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages when mapped against the specific needs of a multi-product, on-chain asset platform.
4.1 Standalone Cayman Companies
The most straightforward alternative to an SPC with multiple portfolios is simply to incorporate a separate Cayman Islands Exempted Company for each product line or tokenized asset.
- What it is: An exempted company is the standard type of offshore company in the Cayman Islands, designed for international business.
- Pros:
- Absolute Legal Separation: Each company is a distinct legal entity. This provides the highest possible degree of liability isolation between different products. Creditors of Company A have no recourse whatsoever to the assets of Company B.
- Individual Branding: Each product can have its own unique company name and distinct branding.
- Tailored Regulatory Status: If one product requires a specific regulatory license (e.g., a money services business license), that license can be held by the specific company without impacting others.
- Cons (especially for multi-product platforms):
- Higher Costs: Incorporating and maintaining multiple companies incurs significantly higher setup fees, annual government registration fees, directorship fees (as each may require its own board or at least distinct considerations), audit fees (if applicable per company), and corporate administration fees.
- Administrative Burden: Managing multiple distinct legal entities involves more complex governance, separate statutory filings for each, separate bank accounts, and potentially different service providers, leading to a heavier administrative load.
- Slower to Market for New Products: Launching a new product requires the full incorporation process for a new company, which is more time-consuming than establishing a new SP within an existing SPC.
- Less Operational Cohesion: It can be harder to achieve operational synergies and shared services across entirely separate companies.
4.2 Cayman ELPs
Cayman Exempted Limited Partnerships (ELPs) are commonly used for private equity, venture capital, and some types of hedge funds.
- What it is: An ELP consists of at least one General Partner (GP), who manages the partnership and has unlimited liability for its debts (often the GP is a limited liability company to cap this), and one or more Limited Partners (LPs), whose liability is limited to their capital contribution.
- Pros:
- Structural Flexibility: The Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) offers significant flexibility in defining terms related to capital contributions, distributions, governance, and carried interest.
- Pass-Through Tax Treatment: For investors in certain jurisdictions (like the US), ELPs can offer pass-through tax treatment, meaning profits and losses are taxed at the partner level, not the partnership level.
- Cons (for multi-product liability segregation):
- Contractual vs. Statutory Segregation: While an LPA can be drafted to create different "series" of partnership interests, each notionally linked to a specific pool of assets and liabilities, this segregation is primarily contractual. It may not offer the same robust, statutory protection against third-party creditors (who are not party to the LPA) as an SPC's segregated portfolios. A creditor might still attempt to claim against the general assets of the ELP if a series defaults.
- Complexity for Platform Approach: Creating true segregation comparable to an SPC within a single ELP can make the LPA extremely complex. Setting up multiple distinct ELPs would be akin to multiple exempted companies in terms of cost and administration.
4.3 Cayman LLCs
The Cayman Limited Liability Company (LLC), introduced more recently, combines features of both a company and a partnership.
- What it is: It offers limited liability to its members (like a company) and internal management flexibility (like a partnership) governed by an LLC Agreement.
- Pros:
- Flexible Governance: The LLC Agreement dictates the operational and governance structure.
- Pass-Through Tax Potential: Can be structured for pass-through tax treatment in some investor home jurisdictions.
- Capital Maintenance Flexibility: Less restrictive rules on distributions compared to exempted companies.
- Cons (for multi-product liability segregation):
- Similar to ELPs for Segregation: Like ELPs, while an LLC Agreement can define different "series" of interests linked to specific asset pools, this segregation is largely contractual. It lacks the statutory "ring-fencing" of an SPC. The Cayman Islands does not have a "Series LLC" statute in the same way some US states do, where each series can have statutory separation.
- Newer Structure: While based on familiar concepts (like Delaware LLCs), it has a shorter history in Cayman than exempted companies or ELPs, meaning a slightly less developed body of local case law specifically concerning its nuances in complex scenarios.
4.4 Multi-Class Share Companies
A standard exempted company can be structured with different classes of shares, where the performance of each share class is contractually linked to a defined pool of assets.
- What it is: A single exempted company with a share capital divided into, for example, Class A shares (linked to Asset Pool A), Class B shares (linked to Asset Pool B), etc.
- Pros:
- Simpler Initial Setup: Easier and potentially cheaper to set up initially than an SPC.
- Single Legal Entity: Simpler administration than managing multiple distinct companies.
- Cons (Crucial Limitation):
- No Statutory Segregation of Liabilities: This is the critical drawback. Despite the contractual linking of share classes to asset pools in the company's articles or offering documents, all assets legally belong to the single company. If the company incurs a significant liability (even if notionally attributable to one asset pool), creditors can typically access all assets of the company to satisfy their claims. The "walls" between asset pools are contractual, not statutory, and may not withstand creditor claims against the company as a whole. This makes it much riskier for a multi-product platform where one product's failure could jeopardize all others. An SPC provides statutory "ring-fencing" which is a significant advantage over this.
4.5 Series LLCs (Delaware)
While this white paper focuses on Cayman structures, it's useful to briefly mention the Series LLC concept found in some US states like Delaware, as it shares conceptual similarities with the SPC's segregated portfolios.
- What it is: A Series LLC allows a single LLC to establish multiple "series," each of which can have its own assets, members, and limited liability shield, separate from other series and from the main LLC, under the law of its formation state.
- Pros (within its jurisdiction): Offers statutory liability segregation between series.
- Cons (for international ventures):
- US Domestic Structure: Primarily suited for US-focused operations.
- Cross-Jurisdictional Recognition: A major uncertainty is whether courts outside the incorporating US state (including foreign jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands or where international assets/creditors are located) will fully recognize the inter-series limited liability. This is less certain than the international recognition of Cayman SPC segregation.
- Different Regulatory Environment: Subject to US legal and regulatory frameworks.
4.6 Trust Structures
Trusts (e.g., Cayman STAR Trusts or Unit Trusts) are versatile and often used in wealth management and for certain types of collective investment schemes.
- What it is: A legal arrangement where a trustee holds assets for the benefit of beneficiaries (or for a purpose, in the case of a STAR trust). Unit trusts issue units to investors, representing a share in the trust's assets.
- Pros:
- Asset Protection: Can offer strong asset protection features.
- Flexibility: Highly customizable through the trust deed.
- Cons (for dynamic multi-product platforms):
- Complexity for Iterative Products: Managing multiple, frequently updated "product lines" (like tokenized assets) within a trust structure might be more cumbersome than using SPs in an SPC.
- Governance: Governance can be complex, depending on the trustee's role and powers.
- Liability: While beneficiaries are generally not liable for trust debts, the liability of the trustee and recourse to trust assets can be nuanced. Achieving the clear-cut segregation of an SPC for numerous distinct asset pools within a single trust can be challenging.
Each of these structures has its place. However, for a venture that explicitly requires (a) strong, legally recognized segregation of liability between multiple, evolving product lines, (b) operational and cost efficiency in launching these products, and (c) a framework suitable for both traditional and on-chain assets under a respected international jurisdiction, the Cayman SPC often presents the most holistically aligned solution.
5. SPC Advantages: A Comparison
When evaluating the Cayman SPC against alternatives for a multi-product, on-chain asset venture, its advantages become particularly clear, especially concerning the core requirements of liability segregation, scalability, and operational efficiency.
| Feature | Cayman SPC | Standalone Exempted Companies (per product) | Cayman ELP / LLC (Single entity with contractual series) | Multi-Class Share Company (No statutory segregation) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Inter-Product Liability Shielding | Statutory ring-fencing between Segregated Portfolios (SPs). Strong protection. | Excellent (each is a separate legal entity). | Contractual segregation; protection against third parties relies on agreement. | Weak or non-existent statutory protection against cross-class liabilities. |
| 2. Ease of Adding New Products/Assets | Relatively simple and cost-effective to create new SPs by board resolution. | Requires new company incorporation for each – more time and cost. | LPA/LLC agreement might need complex amendments; less streamlined than creating SPs. | Adding new classes is possible, but doesn't solve liability issue. |
| 3. Cost Efficiency (Multiple Products) | Lower ongoing government fees for SPs vs. new companies. Shared overheads (directors, admin for the SPC). | Higher overall costs (multiple registration fees, directorships, audits). | Can be cost-effective for a single entity, but complexity grows with many series. | Lower than multiple companies, but lacks key SPC benefits. |
| 4. Operational Efficiency (Platform) | Centralized management (SPC board), option for SP-specific committees/managers. Service providers can be appointed at SPC level. | Decentralized; each company needs separate management and service providers. | Can be efficient if well-drafted, but statutory framework of SPC is clearer. | Managed as one company, but operational segregation of assets/liabilities is manual. |
| 5. Investor Perception (Segregation) | Clear statutory segregation is attractive for investor confidence in asset protection. | Strong, as entities are distinct. | May require more investor due diligence on contractual soundness of segregation. | May be perceived as riskier due to lack of statutory segregation. |
| 6. Suitability for External Managers (Per SP) | Clear framework to attribute management to a specific SP and contain liabilities. | Clear, as manager contracts with a distinct entity. | Possible, but contractual clarity is paramount. | Difficult to cleanly segregate externally managed asset pool liabilities. |
| 7. Regulatory Framework for Segregation | Specifically provided for under Cayman Companies Law. | Standard company law applies to each. | Relies on general contract law and specific LPA/LLC terms. | General company law; no specific statutory segregation for classes. |
| 8. Flexibility for Different Asset Types | High. SPs can hold diverse assets (equities, debt, real estate, digital assets). | High, but requires a new company for each significantly different strategy/asset. | High, subject to LPA/LLC agreement. | High, but all within one liability pool. |
| 9. Speed to Market (New Products) | Faster to launch new SPs once the SPC is established. | Slower due to new incorporation process for each. | Potentially faster than new incorporation, but may need complex documentation. | Relatively fast to add share classes. |
| 10. Established Use for Fund Platforms | Widely used and understood for multi-strategy funds, umbrella funds, and platforms. | Common for single strategy funds. | ELPs common for PE/VC. LLCs gaining traction. Contractual series less common for broad platforms than SPC. | Less common for platforms requiring robust liability segregation. |
6. SPC Limitations
Despite its many strengths, the Cayman SPC is not without its limitations or considerations that prospective users should understand. A balanced view requires acknowledging areas where other structures might offer advantages or where the SPC framework demands particular attention to detail.
| Feature | Cayman SPC | Standalone Exempted Companies (per product) | Cayman ELP / LLC (Single entity) | US Series LLC (for comparison) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Absolute Legal Separation | SPs are not separate legal entities, though assets/liabilities are segregated. The SPC is one legal entity. | Each company is a distinct legal entity, offering the highest degree of legal separation. | Single legal entity. | Series can be treated almost as separate entities in their formation state. |
| 2. Complexity of Cross-SP Dealings | Transfers between SPs must be at full value; requires careful administration to maintain segregation. | Dealings are standard inter-company transactions. | Internal transfers between contractual series depend on LPA/LLC agreement; potential for complexity. | Similar to SPCs, requires careful administration. |
| 3. Risk of Defective Segregation (Admin) | Improper administration (e.g., co-mingling assets, misattribution of contracts) could theoretically weaken segregation. Directors have a duty to maintain segregation. | Lower risk, as assets are naturally in separate companies. | Relies heavily on adherence to contractual terms; administrative errors could be problematic. | Relies on adherence to statutory requirements and operating agreement. |
| 4. Name Recognition of Individual "Funds" | Each SP is part of the overall SPC (e.g., "ABC Fund SPC - Global Equity SP"). May have less distinct branding per SP. | Each company has its own unique name, potentially stronger individual branding. | The "series" are part of the ELP/LLC. | Series have distinct designations but are part of the main LLC. |
| 5. Jurisdiction of Assets/Contracts | Recognition of statutory segregation by foreign courts (where assets/creditors are) is strong but not universally tested for every jurisdiction. Contractual limited recourse language is often included as a backup. | Standard international recognition of separate corporate personality. | Contractual segregation recognition internationally depends on governing law and comity. | Foreign recognition of inter-series liability shield is a significant concern. |
| 6. Initial Setup Complexity (vs. Single Co.) | More complex initial setup than a single standard exempted company (though simpler than multiple). | Simplest initial setup for the first company. Complexity grows with each additional company. | Simpler initial setup than an SPC if only one "series" is contemplated. | Can be complex to set up correctly. |
| 7. Potential for General Creditor Attack (General Assets) | If an SP's assets are insufficient, creditors of that SP might (unless articles prohibit, which is common) have recourse to the SPC's general assets (not other SPs). | Creditors of one company have no recourse to another company. | Creditors of the ELP/LLC generally have recourse to all its assets, unless series are robustly segregated AND limited recourse agreed. | Similar risk for the main LLC's general assets if a series fails and can access them. |
| 8. Specific Regulatory Needs per "Fund" | If one SP needs a specific regulatory license (e.g., insurance), it might subject the entire SPC to some oversight, though typically segregated. | Easier to isolate regulatory requirements to the specific licensed company. | A single license for the ELP/LLC might be complex if series have vastly different activities. | Similar to SPC. |
| 9. Investor Familiarity (vs. Standalone) | Very familiar in fund context, but some very conservative investors might marginally prefer distinct legal entities. | Most straightforward and universally understood structure for asset holding. | ELPs are standard for PE/VC. LLCs and contractual series might be less familiar to some investors. | Familiar in the US, less so internationally. |
| 10. Wind-down of Entire Structure | Winding down the entire SPC involves all SPs. Individual SPs can be wound down separately. | Each company wound down individually. If one fails, others are unaffected. | Winding down the entire ELP/LLC. Contractual series wind-down dictated by agreement. | Similar to SPC. |
7. Setting Up a Cayman SPC
Establishing a Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) is a structured process that involves careful planning, engagement with specialist service providers, meticulous documentation, and adherence to Cayman Islands regulatory requirements. While more involved than setting up a basic company, the long-term benefits for a multi-product blockchain venture often justify the initial investment of time and resources.
7.1 Phase 1: Planning & Partners
7.1.1 Business Model
Before any legal work begins, the promoters must have a clear vision:
- What types of on-chain assets or products will be launched (e.g., tokenized real estate, global equity funds, debt instruments)?
- Who is the target investor base for each product?
- Will any SPs require external managers?
- Will the SPC or any of its SPs need to be regulated by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) (e.g., as a mutual fund or private fund)? This is a critical determination as it significantly impacts complexity, cost, and timelines.
- What is the anticipated number of SPs to be launched initially and over time?
7.1.2 Legal Counsel
This is a non-negotiable step. A reputable Cayman Islands law firm specializing in investment funds and corporate structures is essential. They will:
- Provide expert advice on the suitability of the SPC structure for your specific needs.
- Advise on regulatory implications, including CIMA registration if required.
- Draft all necessary constitutional and offering documents.
- Liaise with the Registrar of Companies and CIMA.
- Guide you through the entire setup process. Choose a firm with demonstrable experience in SPCs and, ideally, familiarity with digital asset ventures.
7.1.3 Corporate Services
Every Cayman company, including an SPC, must have a registered office in the Cayman Islands provided by a licensed corporate services provider. This provider will:
- Offer the physical registered office address.
- Handle company secretarial duties (maintaining statutory registers, filing annual returns).
- Assist with CIMA filings (if applicable).
- Potentially offer directorship services. Often, major law firms have affiliated corporate services arms, or they can recommend reputable independent providers.
7.2 Phase 2: Due Diligence & Docs
7.2.1 KYC/AML Compliance
The Cayman Islands has robust AML/CFT (Combating the Financing of Terrorism) regulations. All proposed directors, shareholders (holding significant percentages), and beneficial owners of the SPC will need to provide comprehensive KYC documentation to the chosen law firm and corporate services provider. This typically includes certified copies of passports, proof of residential address, professional references, and source of wealth information. This process must be completed before incorporation.
7.2.2 Name Reservation
The proposed name for the SPC must be unique and approved by the Registrar of Companies. It must end with "Segregated Portfolio Company" or "SPC". Your legal counsel will conduct a name search and apply for reservation.
7.2.3 Memorandum of Association
The Memorandum of Association (MoA) is the SPC's primary constitutional document, akin to its charter. It will state:
- The name of the company.
- The location of its registered office in the Cayman Islands.
- Its objects (which for an exempted company are usually unrestricted, allowing it to conduct any lawful business).
- A declaration of limited liability for its members.
- Details of its authorized share capital (the maximum amount of share capital it can issue). For SPCs, this will include provisions for creating different classes of shares, some of which may be designated to specific segregated portfolios.
7.2.4 Articles of Association
The Articles of Association (AoA) are the internal bylaws governing the SPC's operation. For an SPC, these are significantly more detailed than for a standard company. They must include provisions addressing:
- The power of the directors to establish, manage, and wind down segregated portfolios.
- The procedures for designating assets and liabilities to specific SPs.
- The statutory duty of directors to keep assets and liabilities of SPs separate and to maintain this segregation.
- The issuance of shares that are designated to specific SPs (portfolio shares), the rights of which are primarily linked to the assets of that SP.
- Rules governing any transactions between SPs or between an SP and the SPC's general assets (must be at full value).
- Crucially, provisions stating that creditors of one SP have recourse only to the assets of that SP, and explicitly limiting or prohibiting recourse of SP creditors to the SPC's general assets.
- Procedures for board meetings, shareholder meetings, appointment and removal of directors, etc.
7.3 Phase 3: Incorporation
7.3.1 Filing with Registrar
Once the MoA and AoA are finalized and signed, and KYC is complete, your legal counsel will file these documents with the Cayman Islands Registrar of Companies, along with the relevant incorporation fees.
7.3.2 Application for SPC Status
An exempted company can be incorporated as an SPC from the outset, or an existing exempted company can apply to be registered as an SPC. The application affirms the company will comply with Part XIV of the Companies Law. A notice containing the names of any initial segregated portfolios created upon formation must also be furnished to the Registrar.
7.3.3 CIMA Registration
If the SPC intends to operate as a mutual fund (open to public investment and offering redeemable shares) or a private fund (a private investment fund, typically with more sophisticated investors), it must be registered with or licensed by CIMA. This is a separate, more extensive application process involving:
- Submission of a detailed Offering Document (Prospectus/Offering Memorandum) that complies with CIMA's content requirements.
- Filing of consent letters from the SPC's administrator and auditor.
- Details of the directors.
- Payment of CIMA application and registration fees. This step adds considerable time and cost to the setup.
7.4 Phase 4: Operational Setup
7.4.1 Director Appointment
An SPC must have directors. While there are no Cayman residency requirements for directors of a standard exempted company, if the SPC is a CIMA-regulated fund, CIMA generally requires a minimum of two directors, often with relevant experience. Appointing professional, independent directors resident in the Cayman Islands is common practice and enhances corporate governance. These directors bring local regulatory knowledge and oversight.
7.4.2 Service Providers
- Auditor: CIMA-regulated funds must appoint a Cayman-based auditor and submit audited financial statements annually. Even for unregulated SPCs, an audit may be desired by investors or for good governance.
- Fund Administrator: Essential for regulated open-ended funds to handle investor subscriptions/redemptions, calculate Net Asset Value (NAV), and maintain the share register. Private funds also have requirements for independent valuation and cash monitoring, often fulfilled by an administrator.
- Banker/Custodian: The SPC will need bank accounts for its general assets and separate bank and custody/brokerage accounts for the assets of each SP. For on-chain assets, specialized digital asset custodians may be required.
7.4.3 Initial Board Meeting
Once incorporated and registered (and licensed by CIMA, if applicable), the first meeting of the SPC's board of directors will be held. Key resolutions will include:
- Formal adoption of the MoA and AoA.
- Appointment of officers (e.g., Secretary).
- Approval of the engagement of service providers.
- Resolution to open bank accounts.
- Allotment of initial shares (including any shares designated to initial SPs).
- Formal establishment of the initial segregated portfolios.
- Approval of the Offering Document and any material contracts.
7.5 Costs Overview
Costs are indicative and vary based on the law firm, complexity (especially if CIMA-regulated), and number of initial SPs.
- Government Fees:
- Exempted Company Registration Fee: Around US50,000).
- SPC Application/Registration Fee: Around US$610.
- CIMA Application/Registration Fees (if regulated): Can range from several hundred to several thousand US dollars (e.g., ~US$4,847 total for a registered mutual fund). These are separate and additional.
- Professional Fees:
- Legal Fees: This is the largest component, covering advice, drafting, filings, and coordination. For a relatively straightforward unregulated SPC, this might start from US25,000. For a CIMA-regulated SPC fund, fees can range from US50,000+, or even higher for very complex structures or those involving novel digital assets requiring bespoke advice.
- Corporate Services/Registered Office Fees (Annual): US5,000+ for the SPC.
- Director Fees (Annual, if professional directors appointed): US20,000+ per director per annum for the SPC board, depending on complexity and responsibilities.
- Typical Timelines for Establishment:
- Unregulated SPC: Once all KYC is complete and instructions are finalized, incorporation can often be achieved within 5-10 business days.
- CIMA-Regulated SPC Fund: The CIMA review and approval process will add significant time, potentially 4-12 weeks or longer, depending on the quality of the application and CIMA's workload.
7.6 Annual Obligations
- Government Fees: Annual exempted company fee (
US$1,128), annual SPC fee (US2,440), and annual fees for each SP. Plus annual CIMA fees if regulated. - Professional Fees: Annual registered office, corporate secretarial, director, audit, and administration fees.
Setting up an SPC is a meticulous process, but it lays a robust and scalable foundation for a multi-faceted on-chain asset business.
8. Launching Segregated Portfolios
One of the most compelling operational advantages of the Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) structure is the efficiency and relative ease with which new segregated portfolios (SPs or "series") can be established once the main SPC entity is up and running. This capability is crucial for blockchain ventures that thrive on iteration, speed to market, and the ability to launch diverse tokenized products or on-chain funds without the friction of creating entirely new legal entities each time.
8.1 Creating a New SP
8.1.1 Board Resolution
The primary mechanism for creating a new SP is a formal resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the SPC. This internal governance step is significantly simpler than an external incorporation process. The board resolution will typically:
- Formally Establish the SP: Declare the creation of the new segregated portfolio.
- Designate Its Name: Assign a unique name to the SP. Cayman Islands law requires that the name of an SP includes "Segregated Portfolio," "SP," or "S.P." For example, if the SPC is "Global Assets SPC," a new portfolio might be named "Global Assets SPC - Tokenized Real Estate SP."
- Define the SP’s Unique Mandate: Outline its specific investment strategy, objectives, asset class focus (e.g., global equities, specific types of debt, a particular real estate project, a basket of digital assets), risk parameters, and any restrictions. This might reference a more detailed supplement to an offering document.
- Authorize Share Issuance: Authorize the issuance of a new class or series of shares specifically designated to this new SP. Investors in this SP will subscribe to these particular shares, and their rights will be primarily linked to the assets and performance of this SP.
8.2 Documentation per Portfolio
8.2.1 Offering Document Supplements
If the SPC is offering investments to third parties (especially if it's a CIMA-regulated fund), a master Offering Document (e.g., Prospectus, Offering Memorandum, or Private Placement Memorandum) would have been created for the SPC itself. For each new SP that is open for investment, a "Supplement" or "Addendum" to this master document is typically prepared. This SP-specific supplement will detail:
- The precise investment strategy, objectives, and policies of the new SP.
- The types of assets the SP will invest in (e.g., tokenized global equities, specific debt products, real estate).
- Key terms for shares of that SP (e.g., minimum investment, fees, distribution policy, redemption rights if applicable).
- Specific risk factors associated with that SP's strategy and assets.
- Details of any investment manager, advisor, or technology provider specific to that SP. Legal counsel will assist in drafting and reviewing these supplements to ensure they are accurate, compliant, and clearly define the terms for investors in that particular SP.
8.2.2 Contractual Attribution
It is a critical operational requirement that any contracts entered into by the SPC specifically for the business of a particular SP must clearly state this. The counterparty must be made aware that they are dealing with the SPC acting for and on behalf of a named SP (e.g., "Global Assets SPC, for and on behalf of its Segregated Portfolio Alpha"). This ensures that any liabilities arising under that contract are properly attributed to the correct SP and its assets, reinforcing the statutory segregation. This includes agreements with brokers, custodians, service providers, and any counterparties related to the SP's specific assets or activities.
8.3 Operational Segregation
The legal framework for segregation must be matched by diligent operational practices:
8.3.1 Separate Accounts
Each SP must have its own distinct bank accounts and, where applicable, brokerage or custody accounts. Assets belonging to SP Alpha must never be commingled with assets of SP Beta or the SPC's general assets. This clear separation of accounts is fundamental for accounting and for upholding the integrity of the ring-fencing.
8.3.2 Dedicated Accounting
The financial records, including profit and loss, assets, and liabilities, must be separately tracked and accounted for each SP. If the SPs are funds for which a Net Asset Value (NAV) is calculated, this must be done independently for each SP based on its specific assets and liabilities. Fund administrators play a key role here.
8.3.3 Inter-Portfolio Transactions
While generally discouraged to maintain utmost clarity, if any assets are to be transferred between SPs, or between an SP and the SPC's general assets, this must be done on an arm's-length basis at full market value. The directors have a statutory duty to ensure this. Proper valuation and documentation are essential for such transactions.
8.4 Notifying Authorities
- Registrar of Companies: The SPC is required to provide the Registrar of Companies with a notice containing the names of all segregated portfolios it has created. This notification is often done as part of the annual return process, but legal counsel will advise on the precise timing and requirements for updating this information as new SPs are created.
- CIMA (for Regulated Funds): If the SPC is a CIMA-regulated fund, there will be specific requirements for notifying CIMA about the launch of new SPs that will be offered to investors. This may involve filing the offering document supplement for the new SP with CIMA and potentially paying additional CIMA fees per active portfolio. Consent letters from the fund’s auditor and administrator referencing the new SP may also be needed.
8.5 Cost and Time Benefits
This is where the SPC structure truly shines for a platform model:
- Reduced Government Fees Per Portfolio: The annual government fee payable to the Cayman Islands government for each active SP is significantly lower than the annual fee for a standalone exempted company. For example, the annual fee per SP might be around US488, often subject to an overall cap for the SPC, whereas a standalone company's annual fee is higher (e.g., ~US$1,128 if capital is low).
- Lower Professional Fees Compared to New Company Formation:
- Legal Fees: Drafting board resolutions and an offering document supplement for a new SP is generally much less costly than the full legal process of incorporating a new company, drafting new MoA & AoA, etc. Legal fees for adding an SP might range from a few thousand US dollars (e.g., US7,500+) depending on complexity and similarity to existing SPs, versus potentially US$10,000+ for a new simple company or much more for a new fund.
- Administrative Overheads: No new registered office fees, and often no significant increase in core corporate secretarial fees specifically for adding an SP (though overall SPC complexity may gradually increase fees). Director fees might increase incrementally if the new SP adds significant workload or responsibility, but not to the extent of appointing a full new board for a separate company.
- Speed to Market for New Product Launches: Because creating an SP is largely an internal process (board resolution, documentation supplement) without needing a new external incorporation or (in many cases) extensive new regulatory approvals (beyond CIMA notification for regulated funds), new products can be brought to market much more quickly. This agility is invaluable in the fast-moving blockchain sector.
8.6 Managing Multiple Portfolios
The SPC provides a coherent framework for managing a diverse array of products. The SPC’s board of directors maintains overall oversight and responsibility for the statutory duties of segregation. However, they can delegate specific investment management or advisory functions for individual SPs to internal teams or external specialist managers. This allows for both centralized control and governance, and decentralized operational expertise, creating a scalable and robust platform for growth.
By leveraging the SP mechanism, blockchain ventures can systematically build out their "empire" of on-chain asset products, efficiently and cost-effectively, while maintaining the crucial liability protections that the SPC structure offers.
9. SPCs for Tokenization
The Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) structure, while rooted in traditional finance, demonstrates remarkable adaptability to the novel challenges and opportunities presented by blockchain technology, tokenization, and the management of on-chain assets. Its inherent features of segregation, flexibility, and legal robustness provide a strong foundation for ventures operating at the intersection of conventional assets and distributed ledger technology.
9.1 SPs for Tokenized Assets
The core strength of the SPC – creating distinct portfolios for different asset classes – translates seamlessly to tokenized assets. An SPC can establish:
- An SP for tokenized real estate, where each token represents a fractional interest in an underlying property or a portfolio of properties managed within that SP.
- An SP for a fund that invests in a diversified basket of global equities, with tokens representing shares in that specific SP.
- An SP dedicated to tokenized debt instruments, perhaps representing interests in a pool of securitized loans or corporate bonds.
- An SP that focuses on native digital assets or cryptocurrencies, with specific trading strategies or staking activities ring-fenced within that portfolio.
- An SP for intellectual property rights tokenized and managed as a distinct asset pool. Each SP would have its assets, liabilities, and investor base (token-holders for that specific SP) clearly demarcated, leveraging the SPC’s statutory segregation.
9.2 On-Chain Governance
While Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and on-chain voting mechanisms are hallmarks of the blockchain space, they often require a legal "wrapper" to interface with the traditional financial and legal world (e.g., to enter contracts, open bank accounts, or hold title to off-chain assets).
- An SPC could potentially serve as such a wrapper, where an individual SP’s operational rules or investment decisions are guided by the outcomes of on-chain votes by token-holders of that specific SP.
- The Articles of Association of the SPC and the offering document supplement for the SP could define how such on-chain governance inputs are received and acted upon by the directors or managers of the SP, subject always to the overriding fiduciary duties of the directors under Cayman law.
- This allows for innovative governance models to be implemented at the SP level, while the SPC itself provides the recognized legal entity status.
9.3 Digital Asset Custody
The secure custody of digital assets is paramount. Within an SPC framework:
- Each SP holding digital assets would need its own segregated wallet addresses and custody arrangements. Commingling of private keys or assets between SPs would undermine the entire structure.
- The SPC, on behalf of a specific SP, can contract with specialized third-party digital asset custodians. The choice of custodian (offering cold storage, multi-signature wallets, insurance, etc.) would be an operational decision for the directors, tailored to the risk profile of the assets in that SP.
- For CIMA-regulated funds, there are specific expectations around the safekeeping of fund assets, including digital assets, which would apply at the SP level. The choice of custodian and the contractual terms would be subject to scrutiny.
9.4 Smart Contracts
Smart contracts can automate various functions related to tokenized assets, such as dividend distributions, voting, or interest payments.
- The legal documentation for an SP (e.g., its offering supplement) can reference and describe the role of specific smart contracts in the operation of that SP’s tokens.
- It's crucial that the legal terms and the smart contract code are consistent. Legal advice is essential to ensure that the intended outcomes of the smart contract are legally enforceable and do not conflict with the SPC's articles or Cayman law.
- Dispute resolution mechanisms, in case of smart contract bugs or unexpected behavior, should also be considered within the legal framework of the SP.
9.5 AML/CFT Considerations
The Cayman Islands has stringent Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) regulations that apply to entities dealing with virtual assets.
- An SPC, and by extension each of its SPs dealing in tokenized assets, will need to implement robust AML/CFT policies and procedures. This includes KYC/CDD (Customer Due Diligence) on investors/token purchasers, transaction monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities.
- If tokens are freely transferable on secondary markets, the SPC and its service providers (like administrators) will need to consider how to manage AML/CFT risks associated with anonymous or pseudonymous transfers. Solutions might involve whitelisting addresses, using regulated exchanges, or incorporating identity solutions at the token or platform level for each SP.
- The specific AML/CFT measures might need to be tailored to the nature of the tokens and the activities of each SP.
The SPC structure provides a recognized and regulated framework that can adapt to house these innovative on-chain activities. The key is careful planning, robust documentation that bridges the on-chain and off-chain worlds, diligent operational segregation, and ongoing legal and compliance support to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape for digital assets. By leveraging the SPC, blockchain ventures can build credibility and offer a more secure and transparent environment for investors in tokenized assets.
10. Conclusion
The journey of bringing real-world assets on-chain and launching diverse blockchain-based financial products is one of immense potential, but also one fraught with unique structural and operational challenges. The need for rapid product iteration, robust liability protection between distinct asset classes, accommodation for specialized external management, and unwavering investor protection are paramount.
Throughout this white paper, we have explored how the Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) structure is exceptionally well-suited to meet these multifaceted demands. Its cornerstone feature – statutory segregation of assets and liabilities – provides a powerful ring-fence around each product or asset pool housed within a distinct segregated portfolio. This protects successful ventures from the potential downfall of others within the same corporate umbrella, a critical consideration in the innovative yet often volatile digital asset space.
Compared to alternatives such as establishing numerous standalone companies (which incurs higher costs and administrative burdens) or relying on purely contractual segregation within other entity types (which may lack the same legal robustness), the SPC offers a compelling balance. It delivers significant cost and operational efficiencies when launching and managing multiple "series" or portfolios, allowing blockchain entrepreneurs to scale their vision rapidly and adapt to market feedback. The ability to easily create new SPs by board resolution, with lower ongoing government fees per SP and shared overheads, makes it an economically sensible choice for platform-based businesses.
The Cayman Islands' reputation as a leading international financial center, with its tax-neutral environment, sophisticated English common law-based legal system, and deep pool of experienced professionals, further enhances the appeal of the SPC structure. This established framework provides a degree of certainty and global recognition that is invaluable for ventures seeking to attract international capital and build long-term credibility.
While the SPC is not a panacea, and careful consideration must be given to its nuances – such as the fact that SPs are not separate legal entities and the need for diligent administration to maintain segregation – its advantages for blockchain companies aiming to tokenize diverse assets like global equities, debt, or real estate are profound. It offers a pathway to structure these ventures in a manner that is resilient, scalable, compliant, and conducive to attracting investor confidence.
As the digital asset landscape continues to evolve, the Cayman SPC stands out as a future-proof legal technology, providing the essential building blocks for the next generation of on-chain financial products and services. Entrepreneurs who leverage this structure thoughtfully, with the support of expert legal and financial advisors, will be well-positioned to navigate the complexities of this new frontier and build enduring value.
11. Disclaimer
This white paper has been prepared for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, tax, or investment advice. The information contained herein is based on publicly available information and general understanding of the subject matter as of the date of its preparation. Laws, regulations, and practice may change over time.
No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the information contained in this white paper. The authors and publishers of this white paper shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with the use of or reliance on this information.
Readers should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in this white paper without first seeking appropriately qualified professional advice from legal counsel, financial advisors, and tax professionals in the relevant jurisdictions. The suitability of any corporate structure, including a Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company, depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case.
The discussion of legal and regulatory requirements is for general understanding only and may not cover all aspects relevant to your particular situation. Specific advice should always be sought from qualified professionals in the Cayman Islands and any other relevant jurisdictions before making any decisions related to establishing or investing in such structures.