The elP law provides that UNEP partners are free to agree on corrective measures for any violation of the partnership agreement, and these remedies will not only be unenforceable on the basis of a criminal nature.  In the absence of contractual remedies, the commander has a number of general justice and remedial measures in relation to offences committed by the associated partner to provide information. In dorsey, the komplenurr rejected the commander`s request for information and documents on the grounds that the express provisions of the APA excluded the general rights to request information under Section 22 of the ELP Act. The creation of a limited partnership in Hong Kong through the Limited Partnership Fund (“LPFO”) can provide a cost-effective alternative to the creation of an ELP in the Cayman Islands. The two regimes are very similar, the two do not have legal personality; are tax-exempt and have at least one general partner (“GP”) and at least one limited partner (“LP”) with limited liability (they are not involved in the management of the fund). Both types of investment vehicles are made up of a partnership agreement (“LPA”). A limited liability partnership agreement can be oral or written, although it is much more frequent and easier to enforce. If it is written in a written document, it is still not necessary to submit an LLP agreement to Companies House (unlike the statutes of a limited company) or, unless the rules of a particular sector require submitting any other government agency. The Cayman Court rejected such an interpretation and clarified that the legal obligation under the ELP Act was greater than that provided by the APA and that a reasonable man could not understand that the parties intended to exclude the legal right to broader categories of information by providing specific information and documents. Therefore, restricting or exceptioning the right of the general partner to receive “true and complete information” would require an explicit language of the Fund`s documents. The Cayman Court clarified that the provision of certain categories or categories of documents could not have the effect of restricting or excluding the legal obligation of non-compliance under Section 22 of the ElP Act.  [2016 (1) CILR 46]. In this case, the simple limited partnership agreement for a simple limited partnership exempted from Cayman contained a provision prohibiting the submission of a petition for fair and equitable reasons.
Sponsors who wished to dissolve the fund (and were unable to do so as the agreement of all parties was necessary to liquidate the fund and a family physician was not willing to give his consent) filed an ex parte petition requesting, among other things, the appointment of an interim liquidator through the fund. Finally, the ELP Act specifies that the Court of Justice has the power to make any liquidation decision it deems fair and equitable.  The non-provision of information may provide the Commander with a sufficient basis to place a liquidation petition on the right and fair substance if it is associated with apparent evidence of misconduct or management. The usual reasons for using such a petition would be based on: (i) the lack of likelihood on the part of the directors; (ii) the need for an independent investigation into the affairs of the company; (iii) deadlock; v) the repression of minority shareholders; iv) loss of substrate; and (v) quasi-partnership. In De Dorsey Ventures Limited and XIO GP Limited (FSD 38 2018, notified on October 22, 2018), the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands clarified the extent of a commander`s information rights in an ELP.