Cayman’s latest wealth-structuring vehicle – the foundation company

Published: 26 Apr 2018

First published in LexisNexis in April 2018

Private Client analysis: Carlos de Serpa Pimentel, partner and group head of private client and trusts, and Esmond Brown, associate, at Appleby take a look at the main features and statutory requirements of foundation companies (FCs) after the Cayman Islands’ Foundation Companies Law 2017 (FCL 2017) came into force.

Primary Contact

Carlos de Serpa Pimentel

Partner
Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2082
E [email protected]

Carlos de Serpa Pimentel

What are the key features of foundation companies?

FCL 2017 establishes a company with separate legal personality and limited liability to function like a civil-law foundation or common-law trust. FCL 2017 is not a standalone law but is an addition to the Cayman Islands Companies Law and therefore FCs will be able to benefit from substantial Cayman jurisprudence applicable to Cayman companies.

There are some key differentiators of FCs from Cayman companies and these are:

an FC’s constitution must prohibit the FC from paying dividends to its members

an FC may entrench the company’s objects or other provisions of the constitution or impose conditions for amending them, for example to prevent the officer holders from making changes following the founder’s death

an FC may permit dispensing with members entirely provided that there is at least one supervisor in office at that time

How are these companies created?

An existing Cayman exempted company can apply to be an FC by registering with the Registrar of Companies or an entirely new FC can be established by registering (FCL 2017, Pt 2). When the application is successfully completed, the registrar will insert an endorsement on the certificate of incorporation declaring the company to be an FC.

The documents needed to form an FC are a memorandum and articles of association (a model constitution is given at FCL 2017, Sch 2). Additionally, founders may prepare optional bylaws that do not need to be filed and are not public documents . The bylaws are likely to act like letters of wishes for trusts, they are a series of rules set out by a founder to guide the exercise of discretion by directors, supervisors and other office holders.

The statutory requirements are set out in FCL 2017, s 4(1) for a company to be an FC:

it must be limited by shares or by guarantee, with or without share capital it must have a memorandum that:

states that the company is an FC

generally, or specifically describes its objects

provides, generally or by reference to its articles, for the disposal of any surplus assets the company may have on winding-up

prohibits dividends or other distributions of profits or assets to its members or

proposed members

it must have adopted articles

its secretary must be a ‘qualified person’ (licensed or permitted by the Companies Management Law (2003 Revision) and must approve all contributions to the FC for anti money-laundering purposes)

For what are clients using foundation companies?

Anything that clients currently use trusts or companies (for commercial, charitable, non-charitable philanthropic and wealth-structuring purposes) because FCs serve a similar purpose to a foundation, ie an alternative to a trust or company structure. However, the Cayman legislation has the advantage of establishing a company which has legal certainty and worldwide recognition that trusts do not possess.

Possible uses include:

to conduct a business for the benefit of a family

to fund a philanthropic project or carry out a founder’s wishes whose goal is not simply to make money for members

to hold high-risk, less diversified assets

to be part of blockchain structures-these act in the same way that Cayman companies are used for structuring initial coin offerings

FCs may also be useful to hold shares of a private trust company or for use in Cayman trust structures introduced by the Special Trusts (Alternative Regime) Law 1997. The ability to have beneficiaries with different entitlements will also be useful for asset protection purposes.

Are foundation companies popular with a particular type of client? Why?

We expect that clients in the Middle East will favour Cayman FCs because of their willingness to use foundations in other offshore financial centres and their tendency to be unfamiliar with the way trusts work. The fact that an FC is a corporate body, there is no trustee and there is no risk of invalidity or sham once the registrar’s certificate has been issued are likely to be the most attractive factors.

Encouragingly, there has already been a positive take-up of FCs with a good number on the register already.

Have there been any cases involving foundation companies yet?

There are none that we are aware of, yet, and it is still very early since the legislation was brought into force.

Any other thoughts?

A number of provisions contained in Cayman’s Trusts Law (2018 Revision) (TL 2018) are incorporated into FCL 2017. They include the foreign element or ‘firewall’ provisions which operate to deny heirship rights to the property of living persons and equally apply to property contributed to an FC (FCL 2017, s 3(4)), and TL 2018, s 48 also applies to FCs, enabling the FC to apply to the Grand Court for advice, opinion or directions.

The ability to establish an FC in the Cayman Islands has added a long-awaited and extremely useful vehicle to the Cayman Islands’ toolkit of wealth-structuri ng vehicles.

Interviewed by Robert Matthews.

The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor .

More publications

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

5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Alan Bercow, Daniel Coelho

30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Harriet Ter-Berg, William Spence

30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

Alan Bercow, Zuhair Farouki

28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

Daniel Mitchell, Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin

24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial. The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Susan Fallan, Daniel Coelho, Hannah Oh

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring-562x340

14 Jul 2026

Directors Cannot Delay Shareholder Votes: Cayman Court Limits Postponement Powers

Eliot Simpson, Ray Leung, Steven Yuen

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance

13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Caroline Barton

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring

9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Harriet Ter-Berg, Alan Bercow, Sofia Kranjec

8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Alan Bercow, William Spence

7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.